PDA

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



Etrusco-romano
02-09-11, 13:15
Hello to all, my name is Leonardo, and it's my personal research about the origin of U152.
I found this site very interesting, and probably one of the most "fertile" in regard to research and discussion of genetic issues. First, I ask forgiveness for not introducing myself into the "department" of this forum, and because the English with which I am writing my research is not very good (i prepare this research for italians readers, and so i had to use "google translate" fo translate it), if there should be any doubt do not hesitate to ask. I am very happy to discuss this issue with you all :satisfied:


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Taranis
02-09-11, 14:00
First off, welcome on the forum.

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

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

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

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

Etrusco-romano
02-09-11, 14:25
I explained bad in the post: when talking about percentages between 15 and 20% i was not referring to the total population, but the total number of R1b. Doing a quick calculation, we can say that about 8% of the total French population (Although in the South, where the Roman presence was strongest in fact, can also be reached at 10-15% of total) belongs all'U152. If the U152 was of Gallic origin would that mean only 8% of the French population to direct Would Be descendant of the pre-Roman Celts, and i think it's impossibile.

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

Taranis
02-09-11, 14:32
I explained bad in the post: when talking about percentages between 15 and 20% i was not referring to the total population, but the total number of R1b. Doing a quick calculation, we can say that about 8% of the total French population (Although in the South, where the Roman presence was strongest in fact, can also be reached at 10-15% of total) belongs all'U152. If the U152 was of Gallic origin would that mean only 8% of the French population to direct Would Be descendant of the pre-Roman Celts, and i think it's impossibile.

You are incorrect about R1b-U152, this is clearly about the total number of the population:

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

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


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

If you had read my post, no where in it I claimed that U152 was exclusively of Celtic origin. There clearly is both an Italic and (Pre-)Celtic component to U152.

Dorianfinder
02-09-11, 14:36
Welcome to the forum Leonardo.

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

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

Etrusco-romano
02-09-11, 14:49
I made a rough estimate, but I understand that the French national average dell'U152 does not exceed 18-20%, so I can not explain how it is possible that precisely in the land of the Gauls are percentages of minority U152 as well. The map is wrong with respect to southern Italy, where the percentage of this marker come (maximum) to 25% of the total.

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

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

Etrusco-romano
02-09-11, 14:57
Thanks for the welcome, I'm happy to talk with a brother greek "Italians and Greeks: one face one race" :)

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

Taranis
02-09-11, 15:01
I made a rough estimate, but I understand that the French national average dell'U152 does not exceed 18-20%, so I can not explain how it is possible that precisely in the land of the Gauls are percentages of minority U152 as well. The map is wrong with respect to southern Italy, where the percentage of this marker come (maximum) to 25% of the total.

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

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

I would like to reiterate what Dorian said, namely that you apparently assume Celtic = Gaulish, which is not the whole truth, given how Celtic-speaking peoples were also found on the Iberian penninsula, the British Isles, and in Central Europe (as far north as the Main river, and at the source of the Elbe and Oder rivers), and into the east as far as the Western Carpathians. There is a huge stretch of land in Central Europe which was for centuries Celtic, it would be unlikely that these left no traces at all.

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

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

Etrusco-romano
02-09-11, 15:19
You're right, in my translation I misused the term "Celts" Because even Among Them Were there huge differences.
However, we can historically reconstructing the formation of ethnic France, we can say that the fundamental basis of french ethnicity is certainly Gallic, but we must add a small "layer" of Romans and another of Franks. Now, assuming that the U152 also belonged, and above all, to the Gauls, it remains a great unknown:if in France it does not exceed 20% of frequencies, from those who bring down the remaining 80% of the population (we take a 15/20% compounded from Roman and Germanic Franks)?

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

Dorianfinder
02-09-11, 15:26
Thanks for the welcome, I'm happy to talk with a brother greek "Italians and Greeks: one face one race" :)

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

The original Roman people consisted of three tribal confederations according to the early Romans. The Senate was composed of 300 Senators, with 100 Senators representing each of the three ancient confederations of Rome: the Ramnes or Latin tribes, Tities or Sabine tribes (Greeks), and the Luceres or Etruscan tribes. Within each tribe, a Senator was selected from each of the tribe's ten curiae (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curiae). The king had the sole authority to appoint the Senators, but this selection was done in accordance with ancient custom. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Kingdom

Maciamo
02-09-11, 15:31
Good timing for starting this discussion; I was also about to bring up a new argument in favour of an Italic origin for U152/S28.

First of all, welcome to the forum, Etrusco-romano. I have long argued (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?25962-R1b-U152-S28-more-Gaulish-or-Roman) that R1b-S28 was an Italo-Celtic marker, not an exclusively La Tène/Hallstatt Celtic or Gaulish one, nor only an Italic or Roman one. However today I wish to give more support in favour of the Italic origin.

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

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

Here is some data from the Dodecad Project.

North Italians (average of Dodecad and HGDP members)

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

South Italians

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

French

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


The only way to make any reasonable link between haplogroup frequencies and autosomal admixture is to consider R1b-S28 as Mediterranean. I had already analysed the admixture data (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?26664-Dodecad-project-highest-percentage-for-each-admixture) for many countries and it was obvious that there was an extremely strong correlation between :

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

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

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

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

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

Etrusco-romano
02-09-11, 15:36
Yes but from the third century BC, the Roman conquests in Etruria, central and southern Italy, there was an amazing influx of Italics in the city of Roma, initially rejected (and even expelled from the city), but then built and incorporated. After the Social War, then, a Latin writer (perhaps Cicero, i don't remember very well) commented that the integration of Italy in Rome, "it became impossible to distinguish, at home or abroad, an Roman merchant from a Italic merchant". The concept of "Rome" had evolved to encompass the whole of Italy.

Etrusco-romano
02-09-11, 15:45
Thanks for the welcome Maciamo, glad to know that the subject matter is dear to you :)
I agree with you: the high prevalence in Italy dell'U152 can not be associated to the Gauls, and therefore it is plausible that this marker is Gaul/Italic, and not only Gaul.
It then spread into the territories to the south of Italy (North Africa, for example) is, in my opinion, to be credited to the Roman veterans settled there.

Dorianfinder
02-09-11, 15:46
Yes but from the third century BC, the Roman conquests in Etruria, central and southern Italy, there was an amazing influx of Italics in the city of Roma, initially rejected (and even expelled from the city), but then built and incorporated. After the Social War, then, a Latin writer (perhaps Cicero, i don't remember very well) commented that the integration of Italy in Rome, "it became impossible to distinguish, at home or abroad, an Roman merchant from a Italic merchant". The concept of "Rome" had evolved to encompass the whole of Italy.

There was a difference as ancient Roman society was ruled by the curiae and patriciate. The plebeians were not in charge but were related to the original tribes as they made up the landed gentry who owned the countryside. The rest of Rome were always on the outside looking in. There were instances where generals became politicians but they were mostly from the outer provinces such as Dalmatia, Iberia and Gaul. The introduction of Italic peoples did not change the ruling class and landed gentry who ruled even in the Eastern Roman Empire, probably leaving Rome due to the Italic people's taste for revolution against the ruling aristocracy.

Taranis
02-09-11, 15:52
You're right, in my translation I misused the term "Celts" Because even Among Them Were there huge differences.
However, we can historically reconstructing the formation of ethnic France, we can say that the fundamental basis of french ethnicity is certainly Gallic, but we must add a small "layer" of Romans and another of Franks. Now, assuming that the U152 also belonged, and above all, to the Gauls, it remains a great unknown:if in France it does not exceed 20% of frequencies, from those who bring down the remaining 80% of the population (we take a 15/20% compounded from Roman and Germanic Franks)?

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

Well, you have to consider that the pre-Roman population was not 100% R1b-U152. It's totally unreasonable to assume that. If you look at the total distribution today, this gets clear:

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

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

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

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

I2b - 4% - same as I1.

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

I2a - 2% - also Neolithic.

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

So, summarizing things:

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

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

Etrusco-romano
02-09-11, 16:00
@ Dorianfinder

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

Dorianfinder
02-09-11, 17:48
@ Dorianfinder

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

This is a specialized issue, if we assume then that 15% of the old Roman class remained circa 1st century AD, then we should find less Roman patricians from the gens of the original Roman gentes. I can list them if you want and you will see that the figure does not change, in fact the Etruscan patrician families became less, they almost dissipated altogether before the formation of the Eastern Roman Empire. I have managed to find about ten senatorial families from ancient Rome who moved to Byzantium and carried a Greek form of their gens nomina as well as their original Roman nomina gentes.

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

Etrusco-romano
02-09-11, 18:04
"Adoptio" is the answer. In the Republican era, when the Romans founded a colony generally assigned it to a "tribe" or, rather, to a family, from which, very often, the new settlers (or natives) took the surname. I'll take an example: my mother is come for half from Naples and her surname is "Vitiello," a word that comes from the Latin "Vitellius"; according to various historical research on the study of Italian surnames, the Latin name "Vitellius" was given as a surname all the soldiers who, during the civil war, fought for the Emperor Vitellius. So my mother has a surname of an old noble Roman family, but by no means follows from it.

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

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

Dorianfinder
02-09-11, 18:32
"Adoptio" is the answer. In the Republican era, when the Romans founded a colony generally assigned it to a "tribe" or, rather, to a family, from which, very often, the new settlers (or natives) took the surname. I'll take an example: my mother is come for half from Naples and she's surname is"Vitiello," a word that comes from the Latin "Vitellius"; according to various historical research on the study of Italian surnames, the Latin name "Vitellius" was given as a surname all the soldiers who, during the civil war, fought for the Emperor Vitellius. So my mother has a surname of an old noble Roman family, but by no means follows from it.

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

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

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

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

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

Taranis
02-09-11, 19:26
This is why I now believe that S28 could really be an Italic, Roman or Italian marker, instead of a Gaulish or Hallstatt Celtic one. The only other explanation would be that Hallstatt Celts had a much higher Mediterranean admixture than other Celts. This is also possible since the Alpine region has a high incidence of Near Eastern haplogroups like Italy.

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

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

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

Etrusco-romano
02-09-11, 19:49
The 'Adoptio' was used within the Republican period, it lasted a few hundred years at most and don't forget that the names given to unrelated persons were almost without exception praenomen not the cognomen or nomen gentile. The nomen gentile or name of the gens was never given as part of the 'Adoptio' as this would contravene the tradition of the patriciate. I actually don't know of one case even when an emperor adopted another emperor where the cognomen or nomen gentile was ever given. Remember I am referring to the aristocracy where they did not approve of intermarriage with the ignoble classes. It is a fairy tale that important families would give their servants or non-relatives their cognomen and gentilicium. These were passports and guarded very closely.

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

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

I'm talking about a surnames in Italy, maximum in Gaul and Iberia, but not in Greece, where the Romans rather than to incorporate the Hellenic world stabilize it with them. And you say right, the adoptive was used in Republican age, when it was unified Italy.

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

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

Etrusco-romano
02-09-11, 19:58
Maciamo: the problem I really have with the exclusively Italian/Roman interpretation is really the high levels of U152 / S28 in Poland and more generally central-eastern Europe, which do not match the extend of the Roman Empire. Granted, the German settlement during the Medieval Ages would explain Polish U152, but only if there were sizable quantities of U152 already in Germany before, which I don't quite see how that could have happened from the background that the Romans occupied only small parts of modern-day Germany (ie, left-bank Rhineland and southern Germany south of the Danube). There is also the additionally component that most of the Roman towns along the Rhine were looted/sacked by the Huns, so it is likely that a large quantity of the Roman population would have been killed. The only way that I see how there could be sufficient quantities of U152 in Germany at that point is that it was there from earlier, ie from the Celtic population in what is today southern and western Germany which got absorbed in the 2nd century BC to 1st century AD as the Germanic tribes migrated southwards.

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

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

I think it's not so high frequency in Germany and Poland, not to justify native origin of the U152 i think. Anyway the culture of Urnfield not arrive in Corsica, Sardinia and south Italy, so we can not explain the diffusion of U152 in this places with this teory.

Taranis
02-09-11, 20:44
I think it's not so high frequency in Germany and Poland, not to justify native origin of the U152 i think.

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

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


Anyway the culture of Urnfield not arrive in Corsica, Sardinia and south Italy, so we can not explain the diffusion of U152 in this places with this teory.

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

Etrusco-romano
02-09-11, 21:20
Honestly, I don't think that the high concentrations in northern Italy can be explained exclusively from Italic origin, either. I think that the cummulative effect of several factors might be at work here.

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



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


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


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

Taranis
02-09-11, 21:33
The question of the barbarian invasions in Italy was, especially after the second post-war period, much emphasized, too say. To date, the scientific community, with the help of genetic fact, is precisely fundamentally rethinking their positions. Migration in Italy, will not have been after the gaul migration in the first millennium BC; the Goths and Lombards were a very small minority (about 210,000 are believed in all, on an Italian population of about 8-9 million people) who fought each other them up to the almost total "extinction", so may be we can exclude the "austrian possibility for the U152" (but, with the Germanic invasions, there was, in fact, a Romanized Germanic-Celtic people who flee to Italy from Austria/Bavaria, They Are colled "Ladins", and they actualy live in the Veneto, but they are like 40,000 or 50,000 people T, not more). I honestly do not think the U152 is penentrati in Italy at a later time in Rome, but I think that, especially in Northern Italy, they are the result of a union between a few roosters remained alive after the extermination of the Roman and Italic settlers there have appeared.


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

The Goths and Lombards would have been unlikely candidates for spreading U152 since their areas of origin before the migration (modern-day western Ukraine with the former, and northern Germany with the latter). I personally think that Italian U106 has a much better likelihood of being of Lombardic origin.

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

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

spongetaro
02-09-11, 21:37
The only way to make any reasonable link between haplogroup frequencies and autosomal admixture is to consider R1b-S28 as Mediterranean.

It works with France and R1b U152 but which haplogroup or subclade makes the Mediterranean component in Orcadian for example?

Etrusco-romano
02-09-11, 21:52
The Goths and Lombards would have been unlikely candidates for spreading U152 since their areas of origin before the migration (modern-day western Ukraine with the former, and northern Germany with the latter). I personally think that Italian U106 has a much better likelihood of being of Lombardic origin.

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

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

Yes yes i know this abouth Goths and Longobards, i say it only for enclose historically the period of invasions in Italy :)

You say right: Celts in Cisalpine are one of the most "father" of U152 in north Italy i think, but just one moment, i want to say one important things about this subject.
May be you know the actualy politic situation in Italy, and may be you know the politican party "Lega Nord", a secessionist party of the North Italy who say that the people who come from this lands are discendent of Celts, and so all the Italian academics worked on the issue "the Cisalpine Celts", even to deny what this political party is saying, and the result is renowned at international level, is roughly this: the Cisalpine Celts are not to much, and later two war against Rome and a revolt with Hannibal for get rid from Roma they'r number was reduced drastically; thanks to archeology and history Latin and Greek we can estimate they'r population in maximum 110.000 person in all the Cisalpine, but that should be added about 400,000 settlers arrived between the second century BC and the second century AD from other parts of Italy. So we can say that only a little part of Lombardia, High Piemont, Emilia and Romagna (we exclude Liguria ed Veneto, becouse the population who lives in this region are not Celts) come from Celts.

Dorianfinder
02-09-11, 23:06
The Goths and Lombards would have been unlikely candidates for spreading U152 since their areas of origin before the migration (modern-day western Ukraine with the former, and northern Germany with the latter). I personally think that Italian U106 has a much better likelihood of being of Lombardic origin.

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

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

The pre-Etruscans sound promising, who might they have been? Any thoughts as to who inhabited Italy before the migrations from the west coast of Anatolia (Etruscans) and the R1b-U152 from the north? If we take R1b and some J away we are left with a typical early Balkan admixture. Pelasgian soup ..

Etrusco-romano
03-09-11, 00:11
The pre-Etruscans sound promising, who might they have been? Any thoughts as to who inhabited Italy before the migrations from the west coast of Anatolia (Etruscans) and the R1b-U152 from the north? If we take R1b and some J away we are left with a typical early Balkan admixture. Pelasgian soup ..

It Is not certain that as the etruscans come from Anatolia, it is very likely yes, but not certain. In Italy, for quite some time, we are working on this, and, above all thanks to Cippus Perusinus, we are assuming that the Etruscans were may be native of Italy and built a civilization that had no independent influence "foreign". This is obviously a guess, also because on the other hand we discovered a certain affinity between the Etruscan language and other spoken in Anatolia, the Luwian language.

However it is true, is it possible to associate the arrival of some U152 in northern Italy in pre-Etruscan people, though honestly i have no news of disparate groups of "explorers" Indo-Europeans arrived earlier than their cousins proto-celts, proto-italics and proto-germans.

Taranis
03-09-11, 00:26
It Is not certain that as the etruscans come from Anatolia, it is very likely yes, but not certain. In Italy, for quite some time, we are working on this, and, above all thanks to Cippus Perusinus, we are assuming that the Etruscans were may be native of Italy and built a civilization that had no independent influence "foreign". This is obviously a guess, also because on the other hand we discovered a certain affinity between the Etruscan language and other spoken in Anatolia, the Luwian language.

However it is true, is it possible to associate the arrival of some U152 in northern Italy in pre-Etruscan people, though honestly i have no news of disparate groups of "explorers" Indo-Europeans arrived earlier than their cousins proto-celts, proto-italics and proto-germans.

Well, the evidence for Etruscans not being native to Italy is fairly compelling, both from the genetic perspective (Tuscan cattle, and also the J1 peak in Tuscany), but also from linguistic perspective. Etruscan is clearly a non-Indo-European languages, but it shows some affinities with the Anatolian languages. There is also the issue that there is no linguistic evidence for Etruscan being spoken outside of the realm of the Etruscan civilization, with possible exception of the north*. As for who the pre-Etruscans were, in my opinion they would have been Indo-Europeans. There is also the (provocativ, but interesting) idea that the arrival of the Etruscans caused a disjunction in what was previous an "Italo-Celtic" if you will dialect continuum and actually brought about the difference between Celtic and Italic languages. What is fact is that there are a few Indo-European loans in Etruscan which seem to fall into that spectrum.

*with "north", I mean the Raetians: the problem is that we have a disparity between the "Raetian" inscriptions (which clearly show a language akin to Etruscan), and the "Raetian" people, who were a very heterogenic group that clearly also included Celts, Ligurians and possibly others. Therefore, the people who wrote the Raetian inscriptions may not have been the same as the Raetic tribes.

Maciamo
03-09-11, 08:16
It works with France and R1b U152 but which haplogroup or subclade makes the Mediterranean component in Orcadian for example?

R1b ht35. That's why I started another thread yesterday about the frequencies of R1b ht35 (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?26755-Frequencies-of-Near-Eastern-R1b-%28ht35%29) (i.e. non-S116 and and non-S26). There are surprisingly high percentages in Germany (about 5%), the Netherlands (4.5%), Norway (4%) and up to 6% in parts of Britain. It is 2.5% in Orkney. However, Orkney being so tiny, I suspect that a few lineages of the last people to conquer the island could have easily superseded older ones. I wouldn't be surprised if Neolithic Orcadians had a lot of I2a and/or G2a, and that this only survives through maternal lineages, explaining the high Mediterranean autosomes.

Dorianfinder
03-09-11, 10:14
I'm talking about a surnames in Italy, maximum in Gaul and Iberia, but not in Greece, where the Romans rather than to incorporate the Hellenic world stabilize it with them. And you say right, the adoptive was used in Republican age, when it was unified Italy.

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

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

There are other more likely sources for the name Caecina such as the river that ran through the ancient town of Volaterrae. Sabine is definitely not Italic, this is clear. There were no surnames as we know today during the time of the Romans. Only the aristocracy held to the tradition of having three nomina as I have mentioned. To assume that the peasants and slaves held three nomina as was the tradition of the nobility is baseless. I would like to see examples where non-aristocrats held a gentilicium (nomina gentile) during the Roman period. The 'Adoptio' simply refers to the fact that a commoner was given a single name (praenomen) or a patronym to refer to their commanding general but certainly not the gentilicium or cognomen.

Etrusco-romano
03-09-11, 11:45
There are other more likely sources for the name Caecina such as the river that ran through the ancient town of Volaterrae. Sabine is definitely not Italic, this is clear. There were no surnames as we know today during the time of the Romans. Only the aristocracy held to the tradition of having three nomina as I have mentioned. To assume that the peasants and slaves held three nomina as was the tradition of the nobility is baseless. I would like to see examples where non-aristocrats held a gentilicium (nomina gentile) during the Roman period. The 'Adoptio' simply refers to the fact that a commoner was given a single name (praenomen) or a patronym to refer to their commanding general but certainly not the gentilicium or cognomen.

I know where Caecina come, and they have given their name to a little city near my natal city, Cecina.
The Sabines were Italics. The Umbrians consecrated all their children born in a year to the god Mars and, due to overpopulation, when they grow up they sent to the border south-west, where they took the name of Sabine. Marcus Aurelius, in his speech, referring to the Sabines as "mixed Italic people" just to indicate the more general term "italic".

The slaves had no real last name, and on this we agree, but free citizens yes, and one of the many examples is undoubtedly one of the tribunes of the people, who, despite coming from the populace, had the name, surname and nickname (Gaius Licinius Stolons, Albinius Paterculus Lucius, Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus: all plebeians with the last name), so I can not understand where and how you might have read that only the aristocracy enjoyed a last name.

Dorianfinder
03-09-11, 12:35
I know where Caecina come, and they have given their name to a little city near my natal city, Cecina.
The Sabines were Italics. The Umbrians consecrated all their children born in a year to the god Mars and, due to overpopulation, when they grow up they sent to the border south-west, where they took the name of Sabine. Marcus Aurelius, in his speech, referring to the Sabines as "mixed Italic people" just to indicate the more general term "italic".

The slaves had no real last name, and on this we agree, but free citizens yes, and one of the many examples is undoubtedly one of the tribunes of the people, who, despite coming from the populace, had the name, surname and nickname (Gaius Licinius Stolons, Albinius Paterculus Lucius, Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus: all plebeians with the last name), so I can not understand where and how you might have read that only the aristocracy enjoyed a last name.

Mars was not a local God-cult but introduced by the Sabines who introduced the war God-cult of Aris (Mars) and Artemis (Bellona) themselves. This Italic Sabine theory of yours is based on what exactly. Where did the Italics get their Mars from? I am not a purist and do not claim the Sabines were pure Spartan or Greek as no such thing exists, but to call them Italic I suppose you mean they lived in Italy. Following your logic everybody in Italy after a couple of generations are Italic? This is a moot point, Sabine is clearly from the Doric Peloponnese introduced into Italy. Their culture, Gods and own testimony assert this from the earliest times.

The name Gaius Licinus Stolons is a perfect example of how the commoners did not carry the gentilicium or noble Roman gens. Firstly, when you read the name you start with the 3rd name first as this provides the gens or heritable clan-name; with freemen commoners their 3rd name was related to their occupation or region or origin NOT a recognizable gens of noble origin. Stolons is NOT a gens.

The second or middle nomina is the cognomen depicting the specific lineage of the gentilicium. Therefore, this freeman's cognomen or family name Licinus belonged to his father and is no doubt his paternal cognomen.

The first name or praenomen Gaius is in fact a family name of the Roman gens. Here it is used as a praenomen by a freeman of ignoble birth as I have mentioned that the 'Adoptio' tradition held that a noble would give his gentilicium or cognomen as a praenomen as is the case here also.

The other two examples are the same, their praenomens are in fact not heritable and depict Roman gentiliciae!

The praenomen in you examples are the nomina of noble lineage - Gauis, Albinius and Tiberius. In noble Romans we find these names as gentiliciae in the 3rd position NOT in the first as a praenomen. They can also be found as cognomens in the 2nd position amongst noble Romans as well!

Etrusco-romano
03-09-11, 13:33
Mars was not a local God-cult but introduced by the Sabines who introduced the war God-cult of Aris (Mars) and Artemis (Bellona) themselves. This Italic Sabine theory of yours is based on what exactly. Where did the Italics get their Mars from? I am not a purist and do not claim the Sabines were pure Spartan or Greek as no such thing exists, but to call them Italic I suppose you mean they lived in Italy. Following your logic everybody in Italy after a couple of generations are Italic? This is a moot point, Sabine is clearly from the Doric Peloponnese introduced into Italy. Their culture, Gods and own testimony assert this from the earliest times.

The name Gaius Licinus Stolons is a perfect example of how the commoners did not carry the gentilicium or noble Roman gens. Firstly, when you read the name you start with the 3rd name first as this provides the gens or heritable clan-name; with freemen commoners their 3rd name was related to their occupation or region or origin NOT a recognizable gens of noble origin. Stolons is NOT a gens.

The second or middle nomina is the cognomen depicting the specific lineage of the gentilicium. Therefore, this freeman's cognomen or family name Licinus belonged to his father and is no doubt his paternal cognomen.

The first name or praenomen Gaius is in fact a family name of the Roman gens. Here it is used as a praenomen by a freeman of ignoble birth as I have mentioned that the 'Adoptio' tradition held that a noble would give his gentilicium or cognomen as a praenomen as is the case here also.

The other two examples are the same, their praenomens are in fact not heritable and depict Roman gentiliciae!

The praenomen in you examples are the nomina of noble lineage - Gauis, Albinius and Tiberius. In noble Romans we find these names as gentiliciae in the 3rd position NOT in the first as a praenomen. They can also be found as cognomens in the 2nd position amongst noble Romans as well!


Italia omnium terrarum parens (Milano, Albanese B.)

Gli interventi degli Italici nella lotta politica romana durante il Tribuno Livio Druso (Studi classicali ed orientali)

Les elites municipales italiaennes de l'italie pensinsulaire des Graques a Neron

La Romanizzazione dell'Italia, Jean-Michele David

Die Nobilitat der romischen Republik

Genti e culture dell'Italia preromana 1981, Roma

These are only 6 of the Italian, French ed German academic texts that says:

1) The surnames were not the prerogative of the Roman aristocracy (I'm not talking about the
various Gens original, but only of surnames)

2) the adoption, in the Republican era, were the mass.

3) The Sabines were Italics (and honestly this is the first time in my life i hear that the Sabines
come from the Peloponnese)

4) During the imperial period the majority of the senatorial class was composed of the
already emerged Italic and Etruscan families.



Honestly I am a bit puzzled in front of them your observations, because during my studies, in both private and collective academic world, no one had ever raised concerns about these issues, because even considered the "obvious" and therefore I am in the "unarmed".

Do you still carry the comments of scholars on the Sabine:

"Traditionally, Piceno, who lived more Este to (the Umbrian), on the Adriatic side of the Apennines, were linked to the Sabines, the southernmost, which would be separated by a migration of those related to the true sacredness." (La Romanizzazione dell'Italia, pag. 13 Editori Laterza)

What i want to tell you is that in Italy we conduct, of course, many studies of Rome and the Italian people in general, so what I'm saying is not the result of a rough looking, but about 200 years of academic studies.
I know the history of Greece, also quite good, but certainly if we started a discussion on the possible surname to the Hellenic people in classical timesI know it less of a greek academic, of course; similar, but inverse, can be said instead of talking about a situation purely Italian.

Dorianfinder
03-09-11, 14:17
Italia omnium terrarum parens (Milano, Albanese B.)

Gli interventi degli Italici nella lotta politica romana durante il Tribuno Livio Druso (Studi classicali ed orientali)

Les elites municipales italiaennes de l'italie pensinsulaire des Graques a Neron

La Romanizzazione dell'Italia, Jean-Michele David

Die Nobilitat der romischen Republik

Genti e culture dell'Italia preromana 1981, Roma

These are only 6 of the Italian, French ed German academic texts that says:

1) The surnames were not the prerogative of the Roman aristocracy (I'm not talking about the
various Gens original, but only of surnames)

2) the adoption, in the Republican era, were the mass.

3) The Sabines were Italics (and honestly this is the first time in my life i hear that the Sabines
come from the Peloponnese)

4) During the imperial period the majority of the senatorial class was composed of the
already emerged Italic and Etruscan families.



Honestly I am a bit puzzled in front of them your observations, because during my studies, in both private and collective academic world, no one had ever raised concerns about these issues, because even considered the "obvious" and therefore I am in the "unarmed".

Do you still carry the comments of scholars on the Sabine:

"Traditionally, Piceno, who lived more Este to (the Umbrian), on the Adriatic side of the Apennines, were linked to the Sabines, the southernmost, which would be separated by a migration of those related to the true sacredness." (La Romanizzazione dell'Italia, pag. 13 Editori Laterza)

What i want to tell you is that in Italy we conduct, of course, many studies of Rome and the Italian people in general, so what I'm saying is not the result of a rough looking, but about 200 years of academic studies.
I know the history of Greece, also quite good, but certainly if we started a discussion on the possible surname to the Hellenic people in classical timesI know it less of a greek academic, of course; similar, but inverse, can be said instead of talking about a situation purely Italian.

This is how I understand your situation. You obviously studied this stuff in Italy under professors who have viewed as experts by many people, right? Good, now to be honest about Italian history or Greek history one needs to take a foreigner's view of history. We need to remove ourselves from all the hype back in the fatherland of our ancestors and try to observe what others see from a more objective view. First off, the Sabines are not pure, the sources that say they are Italic are modern sources, do you agree with this?

Secondly, the Sabines inhabited the region stretching from Lazio, Umbria and Abruzzo to the East coast, do you agree with this?

Thirdly, the Sabines are viewed as one of the fundamental groups that make up the history of Roman Italy. This is the problem why objective Italian academics will be branded heretics or professionally castrated.

What do the earliest sources say about the identity of the Sabine? [do you agree that early sources are better than modern ones?]
Plutarch states in the life of Numa Pompilius, 'Sabines, who declare themselves to be a colony of the Lacedaemonians'.

Dionysius of Halicarnassus states that the Sabines left Sparta circa 800BC - 730BC in protest of Lycurgus, who laws had become severe. The Spartans founded the colony of Foronia near the Pomentine plains and settled as part of the Sabine tribal confederation.

I can also give you reputable British authors who do not have Italian or Greek biases.

Now, regarding surnames - The Roman name tradition is well-documented and not a mystery to anybody who cares to understand the significance of the names, their order and which names are heritable and which are not.

Surnames did not exist in ancient Rome! What you call surnames were often the name of a clan that had various branches with each branch having its own cognomen. The cognomen was not initially passed down, only the gens was. To distinguish people from the same gens the tradition stated that the praenomen be used to identify the individual and a cognomen used to identify the paternal descent. The paternal descent was not inherited obviously as the father changed!

The constant that was passed on was the gentilicium or the name of the gens, this was NOT a surname though, very different thing.

Dorianfinder
03-09-11, 14:35
Here is an example of the Roman naming tradition:

Imperial title: Caesar (1) Marcus (2) Aurelius (3) Antoninus (4) Augustus (5)

1. Title
2. Praenomen
3. Cognomen [Aurelii of the gens Verus]
4. Adopted by predecessor [took his praenomen] - [Antoninus Pius]
5. Title

Marcus Aurelius was originally born as: Marcus (1) Aelius (2) Aurelius (3) Verus (4)

1. Praenomen
2. Cognomen [Aelii of the gens Verus]
3. Cognomen [Aurelii of the gens Verus]
4. Nomen Gentile [Gens: Verus]

The gens Verii supported the party of the gens known to everybody as 'Severus' or the Severan dynasty. It is clear in this example that Marcus Aurelius' father Marcus Annius Verus did NOT pass down his cognomen, Annius!

Etrusco-romano
03-09-11, 14:51
This is how I understand your situation. You obviously studied this stuff in Italy under professors who have viewed as experts by many people, right? Good, now to be honest about Italian history or Greek history one needs to take a foreigner's view of history. We need to remove ourselves from all the hype back in the fatherland of our ancestors and try to observe what others see from a more objective view. First off, the Sabines are not pure, the sources that say they are Italic are modern sources, do you agree with this?

Secondly, the Sabines inhabited the region stretching from Lazio, Umbria and Abruzzo to the East coast, do you agree with this?

Thirdly, the Sabines are viewed as one of the fundamental groups that make up the history of Roman Italy. This is the problem why objective Italian academics will be branded heretics or professionally castrated.

What do the earliest sources say about the identity of the Sabine? [do you agree that early sources are better than modern ones?]
Plutarch states in the life of Numa Pompilius, 'Sabines, who declare themselves to be a colony of the Lacedaemonians'.

Dionysius of Halicarnassus states that the Sabines left Sparta circa 800BC - 730BC in protest of Lycurgus, who laws had become severe. The Spartans founded the colony of Foronia near the Pomentine plains and settled as part of the Sabine tribal confederation.

I can also give you reputable British authors who do not have Italian or Greek biases.

Now, regarding surnames - The Roman name tradition is well-documented and not a mystery to anybody who cares to understand the significance of the names, their order and which names are heritable and which are not.

Surnames did not exist in ancient Rome! What you call surnames were often the name of a clan that had various branches with each branch having its own cognomen. The cognomen was not initially passed down, only the gens was. To distinguish people from the same gens the tradition stated that the praenomen be used to identify the individual and a cognomen used to identify the paternal descent. The paternal descent was not inherited obviously as the father changed!

The constant that was passed on was the gentilicium or the name of the gens, this was NOT a surname though, very different thing.

Perhaps there is the language barrier, because if in Italy or France i say that the surnames would not exist in Roman times they take my paper qualifications and burn it. Here we talk about Roman sunames, which all, except slaves, had. And, again, are not fully able to argue about this for the simple fact that here the issue of "not existence of roman surname" has never been addressed as a "debate" and is the first time I hear something like that, becouse the roman surnames for us are a obvius subject. Language barrier.
separate history from legend. All this to tell you that the Sabines claimed to be descended from the Spartans did not mean it was true, indeed, in all probability was a legend.

Etrusco-romano
03-09-11, 14:56
You are doing the the mistake of basing national cognomistica with cases of Roman emperors. Among the common people was different. Chose the name for the child, he took its cognomen from his father and acquired the nickname after: it's simple and straightforward.

Dorianfinder
03-09-11, 16:35
Among the common people was different. Chose the name for the child, he took its cognomen from his father and acquired the nickname after: it's simple and straightforward.

Commoners did not use the three nomina, only nobles did, if you find examples of commoners with three nomina then they were Roman officials who had priviledges beyond that of a mere freeman.

The cognomen for a commoner was patronymic, you are not wrong when you say this is a surname, I am emphasizing two things you do not seem to know:
1. Patronymics never stayed the same as the fathers changed - This means the patronymic was not passed down for very long!
2. Patronymics have limitations - To claim a patronym as a Roman surname is pointless ... it changed the following generation.

The idea of a surname is when a patronym is passed down despite the name of the following paternal praenomen being different. This is what I mean when I say strincly speaking there were NO Roman surnames! The patronymic as a surname was established after the Roman period. Your professors need to give you half your tuition back, they only taught you half the story.:laughing:

Language barrier, definitely a problem. It also helps when we know the difference between a constant and a differential.

Etrusco-romano
03-09-11, 17:11
Commoners did not use the three nomina, only nobles did, if you find examples of commoners with three nomina then they were Roman officials who had priviledges beyond that of a mere freeman.

The cognomen for a commoner was patronymic, you are not wrong when you say this is a surname, I am emphasizing two things you do not seem to know:
1. Patronymics never stayed the same as the fathers changed - This means the patronymic was not passed down for very long!
2. Patronymics have limitations - To claim a patronym as a Roman surname is pointless ... it changed the following generation.

The idea of a surname is when a patronym is passed down despite the name of the following paternal praenomen being different. This is what I mean when I say strincly speaking there were NO Roman surnames! The patronymic as a surname was established after the Roman period. Your professors need to give you half your tuition back, they only taught you half the story.:laughing:

Language barrier, definitely a problem. It also helps when we know the difference between a constant and a differential.

As we say here in Italy: "to each his own!"; better if a greek care about greek history and italian care about italian history.
Anyway, go di Professor Cavalli-Sforza and say to him that the history lessons of "studio della cognomistica applicata alla Storia romana: il cognome è nel DNA" it was wrong becouse romans don't have surname, and tell to him that my history preparation is half :satisfied:

Etrusco-romano
03-09-11, 17:36
Another example: Lucius Albinius Paterculus, plebs tribunes who come to a farmer family (he's father whose a farmer from a little city near Rome).
I write in english, not in latin for avoid misunderstandings

Prename: Lucius (our really name)

Name (it's the surname becouse he take it from he's father, and he's father take it from he's granfather): Albino

Nikname: Paterculus.

We know that the grandfather of Lucius had as "nomen" (and so a surname) Albino, we know this because the people of Rome, first to elect a man "tribune of plebs" conducted painstaking research among he's relatives to prevent it was a patrician "disguised" as plebeian.

Dorianfinder
03-09-11, 18:37
As we say here in Italy: "to each his own!"; better if a greek care about greek history and italian care about italian history.
Anyway, go di Professor Cavalli-Sforza and say to him that the history lessons of "studio della cognomistica applicata alla Storia romana: il cognome è nel DNA" it was wrong becouse romans don't have surname, and tell to him that my history preparation is half :satisfied:

People use other people's saying when they are too lazy to think for themselves.

You are welcome to quote Prof. Cavalli-Sforza and let him speak for himself.

You claim to have a special privilege because you are Italian and state that you have attended some classes and speak with the knowledge of 'two centuries of work historical documentation' ... this is what some would call delusions of grandeur.

Your interpretation of what I have stated above has been misguided by your emotions and your poor English. What is so telling about you is that you have difficulty understanding English and don't realize that it is you who is making faulty conclusions and misrepresenting what I write.

I don't expect your interpretation of any scientific text to be any different, unless you decide to read things through properly and reply after considering what lies before you.

Surnames as we have today came into very limited use around 1000AD. The term cognomen is understood to mean surname, however the cognomen in ancient Rome refers to something else. I think I've made myself crystal clear on the subject.

Taranis
03-09-11, 18:38
Gentlemen, may I ask how exactly this discussion about Roman surnames relates to R1b-U152?

Dorianfinder
03-09-11, 18:52
Gentlemen, may I ask how exactly this discussion about Roman surnames relates to R1b-U152?

My apologies, the link between early Roman family names and the question whether R1b-U152 can be viewed as a Roman subclade appears to have become a discussion about Roman names.

Taranis
03-09-11, 19:01
My apologies, the link between early Roman family names and the question whether R1b-U152 can be viewed as a Roman subclade appears to have become a discussion about Roman names.

Well, to get back to topic: if U152 is solely Italic/Roman, can Roman settlement alone (plus events that occured later) really explain the concentrations of R1b-U152 we see in Britain (especially those areas north of the former Hadrian's Wall), in Germany (east of the Rhine and north of the Danube) and in Central-Eastern Europe, most notably Poland?

Dorianfinder
03-09-11, 19:52
Well, to get back to topic: if U152 is solely Italic/Roman, can Roman settlement alone (plus events that occured later) really explain the concentrations of R1b-U152 we see in Britain (especially those areas north of the former Hadrian's Wall), in Germany (east of the Rhine and north of the Danube) and in Central-Eastern Europe, most notably Poland?

I agree with what you are saying and think that some areas with R1b-U152 experienced growth independently from other R1b-U152 regions. Romans may have had a lot of R1b-U152 as did the Gauls as did some Scots on the other side of the wall. I believe the chicken in this chicken and egg scenario is the pre-Roman R1b-U152 and the egg that developed from this pre-Roman R1b-U152 in Rome was a significant part of the initial Roman citizenry.

Other eggs from the same chicken were off-course some of the Celtic tribes, the Galatians in Anatolia and the Cimbri to name but a few.

Etrusco-romano
03-09-11, 19:55
I always preferred the lazy people to those arrogant. However, I also ask forgiveness for off-topic.

Returning to the main topic, i would not exclude the hypothesis of a spread of U152 by the colonization of the Roman settlers in non-Italian region. Just to realize how determined and how the Romans colonize land just look to Romania: a country of romanze language countries where the Roman settlers overcame the native Dacians, we are talking about digits with four zeros.

Etrusco-romano
03-09-11, 19:59
To answer to the "Britain question": is also possible that some U152 have moved from Roman Britain to the Scotland, north of Hadrian's Wall, during or after the Saxon invasion (many roman-britans fled to Ireland, for example)

Dorianfinder
03-09-11, 20:11
To answer to the "Britain question": is also possible that some U152 have moved from Roman Britain to the Scotland, north of Hadrian's Wall, during or after the Saxon invasion (many roman-britans fled to Ireland, for example)

There is no R1b-U152 in South Ireland yet suggesting it did not enter Ireland from the south. Similarly, the British Isles has a hotspot in the Souteast and then the vast majority is found along the Northeast, not likely a Roman-era pattern of distribution.

Taranis
03-09-11, 21:24
To answer to the "Britain question": is also possible that some U152 have moved from Roman Britain to the Scotland, north of Hadrian's Wall, during or after the Saxon invasion (many roman-britans fled to Ireland, for example)

In addition to what Dorian said, I think there is a very forceful argument against U152 being mainly Roman if you look at the distribution in France and the British Isles versus the Iberian penninsula. Why is there more U152 in Britain than in Iberia? How is this possible if it's from the Romans?

Also, compare against another Y-Haplogroup which definitely has Roman component to it, namely J2. J2 obviously isn't exclusively Roman and especially in Iberia there's certainly also Greek and more importantly Phoenician J2, but there is clearly a Roman component to it, especially in Western Europe. Compare to how the extend where J2 exceeds 5% very well matches the extend of the Roman Empire:

http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup-J2.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d6/Roman_Empire_117AD.jpg

In contrast, U152 has quite a bit of mismatch with the Roman Empire:

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

...and now compare with the extend of La-Tene:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/1/16/Hallstatt.png/763px-Hallstatt.png

If both J2 and U152 are associated with the spread of the Roman Empire, shouldn't they show similar patterns?

I think that a strong case can be made that there is both an Italic and an Alpine Celtic component to U152.

Dorianfinder
03-09-11, 21:50
I think that a strong case can be made that there is both an Italic and an Alpine Celtic component to U152.

Don't get too excited but there may also be a German component as evidenced by the 'Alsace' R1b-U152 spike.

Taranis
03-09-11, 22:16
Don't get too excited but there may also be a German component as evidenced by the 'Alsace' R1b-U152 spike.

I'm not excited, I just wanted to visualize something for the sake of comparison. :smile:

Regarding the German component, there is the question: is this German or Germanic?

Dorianfinder
03-09-11, 23:39
I'm not excited, I just wanted to visualize something for the sake of comparison. :smile:

Regarding the German component, there is the question: is this German or Germanic?

You could visualize a Frankish (Southwest Germanic) a Bohemian (Southeast Germanic) a Roman (Italic) and a Gallic component. Each community was influenced by its particular environment helping it to develop separately.:wary2:

Taranis
04-09-11, 00:04
You could visualize a Frankish (Southwest Germanic) a Bohemian (Southeast Germanic) a Roman (Italic) and a Gallic component. Each community was influenced by its particular environment helping it to develop separately.:wary2:

Are you teasing me now? :p

In any case, you cannot tell me that a sixth of the population of Thuringia is descended from Romans.

Dorianfinder
04-09-11, 01:01
In any case, you cannot tell me that a sixth of the population of Thuringia is descended from Romans.

Probably not, but more than 50% of the Romans were related to a sixth of the population in Thuringia.:thinking:

Etrusco-romano
04-09-11, 01:51
There is no R1b-U152 in South Ireland yet suggesting it did not enter Ireland from the south. Similarly, the British Isles has a hotspot in the Souteast and then the vast majority is found along the Northeast, not likely a Roman-era pattern of distribution.

Nobody say that the U152 should be penetrated necessarily in Ireland from the south, or whatever it is that they can not be migrated to the north; it's also probably that the population of roman-britans move from the south to the north Ireland in another age for some problems, like invasion, clan wars ecc.. the distant we are talikink abouth it's not so big. Equally possible that maybe the south-west of England, or the Wales, were "off limits" for refugees fleeing the Roman-Britannics by the Saxons (or even from other Germanic people from the South), and therefore they were forced to make a "detour" to get to Ireland, may be landing from the north (and this hypothesis could fit with the spread of U152 in Scotland: perhaps during this migration some of them decided to stay right there). The options tha we can formulate are many, also regard to the British Isles: for example, is plausible to think that these islands have been colonized later classical age (perhaps the Middle Ages, or even more recently) from British all'U152 belonging.

Taranis
04-09-11, 02:06
Nobody say that the U152 should be penetrated necessarily in Ireland from the south, or whatever it is that they can not be migrated to the north; it's also probably that the population of roman-britans move from the south to the north Ireland in another age for some problems, like invasion, clan wars ecc.. the distant we are talikink abouth it's not so big. Equally possible that maybe the south-west of England, or the Wales, were "off limits" for refugees fleeing the Roman-Britannics by the Saxons (or even from other Germanic people from the South), and therefore they were forced to make a "detour" to get to Ireland, may be landing from the north (and this hypothesis could fit with the spread of U152 in Scotland: perhaps during this migration some of them decided to stay right there). The options tha we can formulate are many, also regard to the British Isles: for example, is plausible to think that these islands have been colonized later classical age (perhaps the Middle Ages, or even more recently) from British all'U152 belonging.

Sorry, I disagree. There is no evidence that the Romano-Britsh population moved in large scale into the Scottish lowlands. These lands were inhabited by the Picts, who were subsequently conquered by the Goidels that invaded from Ireland. The Picts, in turn, were P-Celtic people akin to the Britons and the Gauls.

What do you think of the hypothesis that most U152 arrived the spread of iron-working from the Hallstatt Culture in the 8th century BC (and possibly with a second wave from La-Tene into southern England with the Belgae in the 2nd century BC)? I think that this explains much better the distribution of U152 in Britain and the concentration.

Sile
04-09-11, 02:07
The Goths and Lombards would have been unlikely candidates for spreading U152 since their areas of origin before the migration (modern-day western Ukraine with the former, and northern Germany with the latter). I personally think that Italian U106 has a much better likelihood of being of Lombardic origin.

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

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

isn't the area designated as Cisalpine gaul only the modern area of Romagna. there was Boii, Ligones and Samones people there - all celtic people.
The u152 is more around Emilia and Liguria which could indicate a merge of the aboriginal Ligurian people and migrating Etruscan people.
transalpine celt area would reflect the Ligurian and Raetia/swiss area

Etrusco-romano
04-09-11, 12:10
Sorry, I disagree. There is no evidence that the Romano-Britsh population moved in large scale into the Scottish lowlands. These lands were inhabited by the Picts, who were subsequently conquered by the Goidels that invaded from Ireland. The Picts, in turn, were P-Celtic people akin to the Britons and the Gauls.

What do you think of the hypothesis that most U152 arrived the spread of iron-working from the Hallstatt Culture in the 8th century BC (and possibly with a second wave from La-Tene into southern England with the Belgae in the 2nd century BC)? I think that this explains much better the distribution of U152 in Britain and the concentration.

What you say is likely, but I would not rule out the possibility of a Romano-British migration to the north. Perhaps the U152 diffusion in this lands it's the result of two factors.

Taranis
05-09-11, 18:22
What you say is likely, but I would not rule out the possibility of a Romano-British migration to the north. Perhaps the U152 diffusion in this lands it's the result of two factors.

I would rule out such a migration of Romano-British because no such thing was recorded. The "Old North" (roughly corresponding with northern England) was Brythonic-speaking (specifically a language usually refered to as "Cumbric", related with Welsh) until it gradually became Anglicized in the Medieval Ages. Even during the height of Roman power, control in northern England was volatile at best, and most Roman settlement was in the south and east of Britain (conversely, the north and west were the areas were Celtic languages survived into the Medieval Ages).

Another issue is this: if you subtract the Germanic components in England (U-106, as well as most I1, I2b and R1a), the concentration of U152 becomes much higher. I1 accounts for about 14% in England, and R1b-U106 accounts for approximately 25-30%. If you add I2b and R1a (which are also possible to be of Germanic origin, at least to a significant degree). If you add this together, you get approximately 40-50% of all male Haplogroups. If you reduce these Germanic components, the ratio of the remaining Haplogroups (mainly R1b-U152 and R1b-L21) becomes much higher. So we are talking about concentrations of as much as 20-30% of the pre-Anglo-Saxon population being U152. Now we have to consider that if U152 is dominantly Italic/Roman, you have to consider that it would not be the only Roman Haplogroup in England. The most obvious candidate for otherwise Roman Y-DNA in Britain is Haplogroup J2, which accounts for about 3.5% of the modern-day population. If we subtract the Germanic components, we end up with 6-7% of J2. So, we would be talking about approximately a quarter to over a third of the pre-Anglo-Saxon population being of Roman descend. How likely is this? Not very in my opinion.

Another aspect is Celtic tribes which you can find both in Britain and on the mainland, including:
- the Atrebates (Arras, France and Silchester, Hamshire, England)
- the Parisii (Paris, France, and Brough, Yorkshire, England)
- the Brigantii (Bregenz, Austria, and York, England)

From the linguistic (speakers of P-Celtic languages) and archaeological perspective, we have evidence for a fairly large-scale Celtic migration into Britain. In my opinion, the conclusion can be only that most English/British U-152 is of Alpine Celtic origin (since it matches the pattern we see), and not Roman/Italic.

I still think that there should be an Italic/Roman component to British U152, but if you correlate U152 against J2, it's clear that no more than a quarter or a fifth of the British U152 (in the areas that saw intense Roman settlement, that is) can be of Roman origin.

Etrusco-romano
05-09-11, 20:51
I would rule out such a migration of Romano-British because no such thing was recorded. The "Old North" (roughly corresponding with northern England) was Brythonic-speaking (specifically a language usually refered to as "Cumbric", related with Welsh) until it gradually became Anglicized in the Medieval Ages. Even during the height of Roman power, control in northern England was volatile at best, and most Roman settlement was in the south and east of Britain (conversely, the north and west were the areas were Celtic languages survived into the Medieval Ages).

Another issue is this: if you subtract the Germanic components in England (U-106, as well as most I1, I2b and R1a), the concentration of U152 becomes much higher. I1 accounts for about 14% in England, and R1b-U106 accounts for approximately 25-30%. If you add I2b and R1a (which are also possible to be of Germanic origin, at least to a significant degree). If you add this together, you get approximately 40-50% of all male Haplogroups. If you reduce these Germanic components, the ratio of the remaining Haplogroups (mainly R1b-U152 and R1b-L21) becomes much higher. So we are talking about concentrations of as much as 20-30% of the pre-Anglo-Saxon population being U152. Now we have to consider that if U152 is dominantly Italic/Roman, you have to consider that it would not be the only Roman Haplogroup in England. The most obvious candidate for otherwise Roman Y-DNA in Britain is Haplogroup J2, which accounts for about 3.5% of the modern-day population. If we subtract the Germanic components, we end up with 6-7% of J2. So, we would be talking about approximately a quarter to over a third of the pre-Anglo-Saxon population being of Roman descend. How likely is this? Not very in my opinion.

Another aspect is Celtic tribes which you can find both in Britain and on the mainland, including:
- the Atrebates (Arras, France and Silchester, Hamshire, England)
- the Parisii (Paris, France, and Brough, Yorkshire, England)
- the Brigantii (Bregenz, Austria, and York, England)

From the linguistic (speakers of P-Celtic languages) and archaeological perspective, we have evidence for a fairly large-scale Celtic migration into Britain. In my opinion, the conclusion can be only that most English/British U-152 is of Alpine Celtic origin (since it matches the pattern we see), and not Roman/Italic.

I still think that there should be an Italic/Roman component to British U152, but if you correlate U152 against J2, it's clear that no more than a quarter or a fifth of the British U152 (in the areas that saw intense Roman settlement, that is) can be of Roman origin.
I think I do not charge the spread of J2 in Great Britain to the Roman-Italic, but to simple Roman colonists, perhaps from southern Italy (Italiotis, and so Greeks) and Etruria; so if excluded, the J2 must still give a "piece of cake" to the reale settlers Roman-Italic (Romans, Samnites, Umbrian, etc. ...): if they are not J2, they actualy are a part (not all) of percentage of U152 in Britain i think.
Traduci testo o pagina web

I think that the conclusion is that the presence of U152 in the UK is due in part to the Roman-Italic settlers, in part to the Celts Britons in part to the Gallo-Roman settlers arrived in the second century century AD

Dorianfinder
06-09-11, 02:42
I think I do not charge the spread of J2 in Great Britain to the Roman-Italic, but to simple Roman colonists, perhaps from southern Italy (Italiotis, and so Greeks) and Etruria; so if excluded, the J2 must still give a "piece of cake" to the reale settlers Roman-Italic (Romans, Samnites, Umbrian, etc. ...): if they are not J2, they actualy are a part (not all) of percentage of U152 in Britain i think.
Traduci testo o pagina web

I think that the conclusion is that the presence of U152 in the UK is due in part to the Roman-Italic settlers, in part to the Celts Britons in part to the Gallo-Roman settlers arrived in the second century century AD

What do you mean by ... reale settlers Roman-Italic (Romans, Samnites, Umbrian, etc. ...)?

Bath in England is a well known Roman-era warm water spa and a Unesco World Heritage site. No R1b-U152 has been found anywhere near Bath or Bristol where Roman ships would have docked. It is probably the best preserved Roman settlement in England.

Dorianfinder
06-09-11, 03:00
I still think that there should be an Italic/Roman component to British U152, but if you correlate U152 against J2, it's clear that no more than a quarter or a fifth of the British U152 (in the areas that saw intense Roman settlement, that is) can be of Roman origin.

I agree in principle but should just add that in 1078AD England was said to have had no more than a million inhabitants and France across the channel was bursting with a serious overpopulation problem. Brittany is L21 country, also likely that some French U152 may have crossed during this period. I believe, having read quite a lot of Roman accounts about Britain the Romans did not favour going there at all.

Sile
06-09-11, 09:05
If it was already confirmed in mid 2010, that the etruscans where from anatolia
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/jun/18/italy.johnhooper

and there is hardly any U152 there. Is it not reasonable to count out the Etruscans and roman/etruscans as carries of this dna to England.
It would seem that only gallic/roman men went to England

Sile
06-09-11, 09:06
What do you mean by ... reale settlers Roman-Italic (Romans, Samnites, Umbrian, etc. ...)?

Bath in England is a well known Roman-era warm water spa and a Unesco World Heritage site. No R1b-U152 has been found anywhere near Bath or Bristol where Roman ships would have docked. It is probably the best preserved Roman settlement in England.

Reale means royal .....maybe he meant the nobility.

Sile
06-09-11, 11:56
In addition to what Dorian said, I think there is a very forceful argument against U152 being mainly Roman if you look at the distribution in France and the British Isles versus the Iberian penninsula. Why is there more U152 in Britain than in Iberia? How is this possible if it's from the Romans?

Also, compare against another Y-Haplogroup which definitely has Roman component to it, namely J2. J2 obviously isn't exclusively Roman and especially in Iberia there's certainly also Greek and more importantly Phoenician J2, but there is clearly a Roman component to it, especially in Western Europe. Compare to how the extend where J2 exceeds 5% very well matches the extend of the Roman Empire:

http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup-J2.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d6/Roman_Empire_117AD.jpg

In contrast, U152 has quite a bit of mismatch with the Roman Empire:

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

...and now compare with the extend of La-Tene:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/1/16/Hallstatt.png/763px-Hallstatt.png

If both J2 and U152 are associated with the spread of the Roman Empire, shouldn't they show similar patterns?

I think that a strong case can be made that there is both an Italic and an Alpine Celtic component to U152.


The J2 you want to associated with U152 would only be J2a4h2 ( L25) as this is in the northern part of italy as well as anatolia, the phoencians and the cretans. the southern part would be the J2b2 found mosthly south of Naples ( maybe a more african, albanian or greek mainland one )
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Pw3tA_NBX2I/Tdu2a7aaPBI/AAAAAAAAGqI/8FmRgbTo5tk/s640/phoenicians.jpg

Etrusco-romano
06-09-11, 12:24
Sorry, i mean "really" (Roman-Italic settlers, not Etruscan or Italiotes). If we exclude the J2 gene as a purely Roman-Italic (and we must do it because it was greek-Etruscan), where their genetic trace? What you say about the "Roman landing" is not correct, because, as I said, many Roman-British, with the arrival of the Saxons, fled from their home towns, spreading throughout Great Britain.
Think about the revolt of Boudicca, the Roman historians estimated that his army killed about 1 / 3 of the Roman settlers in England, about 70,000 or 80.000: this is for make us understand the greatness of the Roman colonization.


So, where is the Roman-Italic R1b remained in Britain?

Dorianfinder
06-09-11, 12:44
The J2 you want to associated with U152 would only be J2a4h2 ( L25) as this is in the northern part of italy as well as anatolia, the phoencians and the cretans. the southern part would be the J2b2 found mosthly south of Naples ( maybe a more african, albanian or greek mainland one )
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Pw3tA_NBX2I/Tdu2a7aaPBI/AAAAAAAAGqI/8FmRgbTo5tk/s640/phoenicians.jpg

J2a4h was not found anywhere in Greece except 8% on Crete along the coast (King et al.) suggesting it was not on tour during the Roman globalization of Southeast Europe. The levels of J2a4h in Italy and Crete may be from the rural population possible akin to the Minoan-Etruscan-Anatolians non-IE speakers.

J2a4b is particularly high in Central-North Italy with 9.6% and gives a better indication of where the Romans had settled in Europe. It is common among warrior-type J2 people and is spread throughout Greece but is concentrated in the Caucasus.

Sile
06-09-11, 12:46
J2a4h was not found anywhere in Greece except 8% on Crete along the coast (King et al.) suggesting it was not on tour during the Roman globalization of Southeast Europe. The levels of J2a4h in Italy and Crete may be from the rural population possible akin to the Minoan-Etruscan-Anatolians non-IE speakers.

J2a4b is particularly high in Central-North Italy with 9.6% and gives a better indication of where the Romans had settled in Europe. It is common among warrior-type J2 people and is spread throughout Greece but is concentrated in the Caucasus.

thats what I said, we agree

Dorianfinder
06-09-11, 12:54
Sorry, i mean "really" (Roman-Italic settlers, not Etruscan or Italiotes). If we exclude the J2 gene as a purely Roman-Italic (and we must do it because it was greek-Etruscan), where their genetic trace? What you say about the "Roman landing" is not correct, because, as I said, many Roman-British, with the arrival of the Saxons, fled from their home towns, spreading throughout Great Britain.
Think about the revolt of Boudicca, the Roman historians estimated that his army killed about 1 / 3 of the Roman settlers in England, about 70,000 or 80.000: this is for make us understand the greatness of the Roman colonization.


So, where is the Roman-Italic R1b remained in Britain?

Roman landing? The Romans established themselves militarily along major ports. Bristol was the most probable harbor giving access to the Roman settlement of Aquae Sulis.

Your reasoning regarding dispersal of a population following invasions is correct, however you forget to mention that people often head for the highlands when threatened from the coastal plains. Britain's distribution of R1b-U152 is exceptionally lowland and along the East coast. So the Angle & Saxon Germanic invasions did not frighten the R1b-U152 all over the show.

Etrusco-romano
06-09-11, 13:13
So, may be it's probably that the J2a4b is particoular of etruscan people (they was allocated in the number of 30/40.000 in the North Italy) or Ligurian people, but not typical of Italic populations.

I could agree with you, because there are not enough evidence to determine a precise movement of the U152 following the invasion of Germanic, but it remains unknown: where are genetic traces of the Italic-Roman? Italics and Romans were the vast majority of R1b, I think this is a fact, and it is also certain that, for example, 12,000 people in 87 AD from below Abruzzo and Irpinia "accepted" a colonization invitation issued by 3 Roman magistrates to colonize England, and this is still one of the many examples of Roman colonization of England (56 AD: 5.000 people from Piceno; 97 AD: 9.000 people from Latium and Campania ecc...)

PS: where did you find the information related to J2a4b in Italy? There are sites where I can find information such as this but also about other haplogroups?

Taranis
06-09-11, 13:19
I agree in principle but should just add that in 1078AD England was said to have had no more than a million inhabitants and France across the channel was bursting with a serious overpopulation problem. Brittany is L21 country, also likely that some French U152 may have crossed during this period. I believe, having read quite a lot of Roman accounts about Britain the Romans did not favour going there at all.

Regarding L21, my opinion is that it derives from the first wave of Celtic peoples who may have arrived in Britain in the Bronze Age. Specifically, the distribution of L21 largely matches the Atlantic Bronze Age, at least, the northern portion of it (I'm uncertain about Iberia, because it appears that U152 is more common there than L21). This is also backed up linguistically: the early inhabitants of Britain would have been Q-Celtic (like the Irish), and by the 4th century BC it was apparently completely P-Celtic (as evidenced by the name "Pritenni", which is in turn has a cognate in Irish as "Cruithne"). This means that we must have had a large immigration of P-Celtic peoples from the mainland. In my opinion, this occured in two waves, the first wave being with the Hallstatt Culture which brought iron-working to Britain in the 8th/7th century BC. Additionally, southern Britain did see extensive settlement by La-Tene people from northern Gaul (the Belgae) in the two centuries before the Roman conquest of the island. As I mentioned before, there are Belgic tribes which are found on both sides of the Channel. I'm saying that there must be a match in genetics with the linguistic and archaeological patterns described above, and U152 in Britain matches these patterns best.

Dorianfinder
06-09-11, 13:26
So, may be it's probably that the J2a4b is particoular of etruscan people (they was allocated in the number of 30/40.000 in the North Italy) or Ligurian people, but not typical of Italic populations.

I could agree with you, because there are not enough evidence to determine a precise movement of the U152 following the invasion of Germanic, but it remains unknown: where are genetic traces of the Italic-Roman? Italics and Romans were the vast majority of R1b, I think this is a fact, and it is also certain that, for example, 12,000 people in 87 AD from below Abruzzo and Irpinia "accepted" a colonization invitation issued by 3 Roman magistrates to colonize England, and this is still one of the many examples of Roman colonization of England (56 AD: 5.000 people from Piceno; 97 AD: 9.000 people from Latium and Campania ecc...)

PS: where did you find the information related to J2a4b in Italy? There are sites where I can find information such as this but also about other haplogroups?

I will break it down for you to help the discussion and whoever is interested.

Here are some of your assumptions:
- The Italic tribes of Italy were mostly Indo-European R1b.
- The Italic tribes of Italy formed the Italic-Roman society.
- R1b-U152 predominates in Northern Italy, therefore it must be from the Italic tribes.

Can you see where the problem lies?

Etrusco-romano
06-09-11, 13:35
I will break it down for you to help the discussion and whoever is interested.

Here are some of your assumptions:
- The Italic tribes of Italy were mostly Indo-European R1b.
- The Italic tribes of Italy formed the Italic-Roman society.
- R1b-U152 predominates in Northern Italy, therefore it must be from the Italic tribes.

Can you see where the problem lies?

Would you say that the Italics were all L haplogroup? However, enlighten me: what haplogroup belonged italic people if not R1b?

I have already said that most of the Gauls in Cisalpine was destroyed by the Romans, and the italic settlers take their places; haplogroup R1b-U152 is predominant in Northern Italy becouse the Italic peoples did not have to mingle with the Greeks, how happen in the south italy, and so the frequencies have a greater presence dell'U152.

However, I propose again the question: if the Italics were not U152, what they were (we're talking about 60% of the Italian population in the second century BC)?

Dorianfinder
06-09-11, 13:36
Regarding L21, my opinion is that it derives from the first wave of Celtic peoples who may have arrived in Britain in the Bronze Age. Specifically, the distribution of L21 largely matches the Atlantic Bronze Age, at least, the northern portion of it (I'm uncertain about Iberia, because it appears that U152 is more common there than L21). This is also backed up linguistically: the early inhabitants of Britain would have been Q-Celtic (like the Irish), and by the 4th century BC it was apparently completely P-Celtic (as evidenced by the name "Pritenni", which is in turn has a cognate in Irish as "Cruithne"). This means that we must have had a large immigration of P-Celtic peoples from the mainland. In my opinion, this occured in two waves, the first wave being with the Hallstatt Culture which brought iron-working to Britain in the 8th/7th century BC. Additionally, southern Britain did see extensive settlement by La-Tene people from northern Gaul (the Belgae) in the two centuries before the Roman conquest of the island. As I mentioned before, there are Belgic tribes which are found on both sides of the Channel. I'm saying that there must be a match in genetics with the linguistic and archaeological patterns described above, and U152 in Britain matches these patterns best.

The Belgic tribes are in part also a reasonable source for R1b-U152, the L21 distribution in Britain does suggest an early introduction with a sustained period of relative peace with little admixture from outside the isle. The fact that the Brittany coast has significant levels of L21 simply confirms population movements between Europe and the isle, it is likely that the flow was in both directions and throughout a prolonged period.

Dorianfinder
06-09-11, 13:42
Would you say that the Italics were all L haplogroup? However, enlighten me: what haplogroup belonged italic people if not R1b?

I have already said that most of the Gauls in Cisalpine was destroyed by the Romans, and the italic settlers take their places; haplogroup R1b-U152 is predominant in Northern Italy becouse the Italic peoples did not have to mingle with the Greeks, how happen in the south italy, and so the frequencies have a greater presence dell'U152.

However, I propose again the question: if the Italics were not U152, what they were (we're talking about 60% of the Italian population in the second century BC)?

You make a giant leap from ancient Italic tribes to the R1b-U152 subclade. This is problematic!

Etrusco-romano
06-09-11, 13:54
You make a giant leap from ancient Italic tribes to the R1b-U152 subclade. This is problematic!


I'm just saying that: in conditions of great prosperity, in Italy millions of Italics proliferated and tens of thousands of them were sent abroad as settlers. It 'very possible that my theory about U152 in Europe is wrong, but i posted two questions on which I have not received a response:

1) If the Italics (and therefore the Romans) were not U152 (or R1b in generaly), what they were?

2) If the Italics (and therefore the Romans) were not J2, where are their genetic traces in England
(knowing that tens of thousand of them migrated to the Great Britain)?

Taranis
06-09-11, 13:58
Would you say that the Italics were all L haplogroup? However, enlighten me: what haplogroup belonged italic people if not R1b?

You seem to assume that they somehow were exclusively (or at least dominantly) R1b, whereas it is far more probable that they were an admixture. It is utterly unreasonable to assume anything else. In my opinion, it's more probably to think of them as a mixure of R1b-U152, J2 and E1b1b. From Neolithic times, there are also G2a and I1a1 in Italy.


I have already said that most of the Gauls in Cisalpine was destroyed by the Romans, and the italic settlers take their places; haplogroup R1b-U152 is predominant in Northern Italy becouse the Italic peoples did not have to mingle with the Greeks, how happen in the south italy, and so the frequencies have a greater presence dell'U152.

This is not true. First off, you have extensive settlements by multiple tribes: Taurini (Turin/Torino), Boii (Bologna), Insubres (Milano) and Senones (Senigallia). It's actually more likely that they were largely latinized. Ptolemy uses the term "Gallia Togata" ("Toga-wearing Gaul") for northern Italy.


However, I propose again the question: if the Italics were not U152, what they were (we're talking about 60% of the Italian population in the second century BC)?

As I said, it's utterly unreasonable to assume one ethnic group must have one Y-Haplogroup.


The Belgic tribes are in part also a reasonable source for R1b-U152, the L21 distribution in Britain does suggest an early introduction with a sustained period of relative peace with little admixture from outside the isle. The fact that the Brittany coast has significant levels of L21 simply confirms population movements between Europe and the isle, it is likely that the flow was in both directions and throughout a prolonged period.

With regard for Breton L21, I think it comes from two sources: the Bronze Age population, and from Brythonic immigrants during the migration period.

Etrusco-romano
06-09-11, 14:09
You seem to assume that they somehow were exclusively (or at least dominantly) R1b, whereas it is far more probable that they were an admixture. It is utterly unreasonable to assume anything else. In my opinion, it's more probably to think of them as a mixure of R1b-U152, J2 and E1b1b. From Neolithic times, there are also G2a and I1a1 in Italy.



This is not true. First off, you have extensive settlements by multiple tribes: Taurini (Turin/Torino), Boii (Bologna), Insubres (Milano) and Senones (Senigallia). It's actually more likely that they were largely latinized. Ptolemy uses the term "Gallia Togata" ("Toga-wearing Gaul") for northern Italy.



As I said, it's utterly unreasonable to assume one ethnic group must have one Y-Haplogroup.



With regard for Breton L21, I think it comes from two sources: the Bronze Age population, and from Brythonic immigrants during the migration period.

I agree with you, but I'm not saying that all Italics were R1b, I'm saying that a good proportion of them (the majority) were it.
What you say about the Gaul is not true, i translate now one of the many articles on the issue "Gauls in northern Italy" write here in Italy:

The Celts in the North Italy
One of the great German historians, that Karl Julius Beloch, the early twentieth century brought forth an interesting research on the population growth of pre-Roman, and the result was that in the third century BC the peoples collectively, the "Italics" amounted to about 4 million and a half (Italics, Italioti, Etruscans, Romans, and Messapi Iapigi), which had to be added about 200,000 Ligurian (which, it must be remembered, were not quite Celtic, and indeed much more resembled the pre-Indo-European peoples) , 150,000 Venetics (who were probably Latin-Faliscan Italics, Illyrians or at most, but not Gauls), and about 150,000 Gaul (Boi, Senonian, Cenomani c ...). On these figures so we can begin to analyze the development of northern Italy as a political entity, ethnic and even religious.

As we all know, the advance of Rome into northern Italy began precisely in the third century BC, when the same "northern Italy" (Piceno and Umbria), had to ally with the Gauls to counter the advance.
The last great battle of the Celts against the Romans in Italy is undoubtedly that of Talomone, where they were finally defeated. The Romans, after the victory, they extended their domain (initially more formal than real) in the territories north of the Apennines. The first advance was devastating to the Gauls, who, being notoriously prone to submit to the will of the invaders, most of them were massacred. Their number was reduced drastically (perhaps 40% of them perished in the initial fight against Rome), but again they found the strength to fight the Urbe, Italy came when Hannibal, Carthaginian leader who had the specific intent to tear Soil Rome. As we all know the General was defeated Punic, the Peninsula residents and people who had allied with him against Rome were severely punished by the latter: we remember the Ligurian Apuani deported, 50 years after the Punic war, mass in the Sannio (27,000), and remind the Italians rebelled Italioti, punished with death, and finally, remember the Gaul, of which the Roman sword fell violently, until force (even) the flight out of Italy, to escape a furious Rome (the tribe of the Boii, for example, migrated to Central and Eastern Europe, and gave its name to "Bohemia"). At the beginning of the second century BC Gaul is entirely under the control of the Roman Empire, and its lands have been redistributed among the various "Gens" Roman. Historians remind us strong complaints by the new "owners" of the north, who found themselves in front of a huge but the Po valley is uninhabited. Here, then, that the Senate began its work of "rebuilding" of the North. Dozens of colonies were established in the sub-Apennine and Italy went on several occasions, blocks of 6,000 families, Roman, Etruscan and Italic italiote to colonize the north of Italy. . In the Veneto and Liguria these new groups of settlers were superimposed to the previous populations, in a situation of substantial equality, but in Lombardy, Emilia-Romagna and Piedmont High, they completely supplanted the previous culture, which now rested on some Gallic village fortunately escaped Roman's fury.

Conclusions on "Celtic concerned"
about 150,000 on the Cisalpine Gauls, it is possible that during the Roman Empire it remained about restocking 30/40.000, which merged with the much more numerous populations of settlers that we commonly call "Roman Italic" . Partly as a result of a genetic study conducted by the New York Times, it seems that Italy is a sort of "genetic island" (with Finland), where the population has remained roughly the same as 2,000 years ago. And 'therefore fair to say that the current Northern Italians are descended from the ancient settlers in large part be sent Roma.

Taranis
06-09-11, 14:20
Sorry no. That is complete nonsense. First off, eludes me where you get figures like "40%" from. In particular the below part is ludicrous:


"..., to escape a furious Rome (the tribe of the Boii, for example, migrated to Central and Eastern Europe, and gave its name to "Bohemia")." ...

It was actually the other way round! The Boii were originally native to Bohemia and migrated from there into northern Italy (other parts of the Boii migrated into the Pannonian basin and into Anatolia), but a main part of them remained behind. The Bohemian Boii actually remained the dominant tribe in the area until their territory was ravaged by the Germanic Cimbri in the 2nd century BC. Then, in the 1st century BC the Germanic Marcomanni conquered Bohemia.

Besides that, you somehow assume that the city of Rome was some kind of "undepletable pool" that somehow inexplicibly poured out hordes and hordes of settlers that swarmed across Europe to populate the areas that the Romans had recently conquered, somethat is completely impossible to hold to any kind of historic facts.

Etrusco-romano
06-09-11, 14:29
Sorry no. That is complete nonsense. First off, eludes me where you get figures like "40%" from. In particular the below part is ludicrous:



It was actually the other way round! The Boii were originally native to Bohemia and migrated from there into northern Italy (other parts of the Boii migrated into the Pannonian basin and into Anatolia), but a main part of them remained behind. The Bohemian Boii actually remained the dominant tribe in the area until their territory was ravaged by the Germanic Cimbri in the 2nd century BC. Then, in the 1st century BC the Germanic Marcomanni conquered Bohemia.

Besides that, you somehow assume that the city of Rome was some kind of "undepletable pool" that somehow inexplicibly poured out hordes and hordes of settlers that swarmed across Europe to populate the areas that the Romans had recently conquered, somethat is completely impossible to hold to any kind of historic facts.

Tito Livio XXXVII, 57;
Strabone V, 1.

The Boi fled from the Romans through the Julian Alps and arrive to Bohemia.... Perhaps they came from Bohemia, migrated to Italy but returned in they lands when Rome defeat their tribe

However, you did not answer about the colonization of Cisalpine.

Etrusco-romano
06-09-11, 14:41
Sorry no. That is complete nonsense. First off, eludes me where you get figures like "40%" from. In particular the below part is ludicrous:



It was actually the other way round! The Boii were originally native to Bohemia and migrated from there into northern Italy (other parts of the Boii migrated into the Pannonian basin and into Anatolia), but a main part of them remained behind. The Bohemian Boii actually remained the dominant tribe in the area until their territory was ravaged by the Germanic Cimbri in the 2nd century BC. Then, in the 1st century BC the Germanic Marcomanni conquered Bohemia.

Besides that, you somehow assume that the city of Rome was some kind of "undepletable pool" that somehow inexplicibly poured out hordes and hordes of settlers that swarmed across Europe to populate the areas that the Romans had recently conquered, somethat is completely impossible to hold to any kind of historic facts.

I think the 40% is take by the percentage of gauls mobilized by the tribes (multiplied by three and you get the total population: women, children and old people), it calculates how many died, and, with the archaeological remains, what extent were the massacres in the villages Cisalpine conquered.

Taranis
06-09-11, 14:41
Tito Livio XXXVII, 57;
Strabone V, 1.

The Boi fled from the Romans through the Julian Alps and arrive to Bohemia.... Perhaps they came from Bohemia, migrated to Italy but returned in they lands when Rome defeat their tribe

Perhaps, but consider that Livy is not the most reliable source. There is a lot in his works that are confabulations or exaggerations.


However, you did not answer about the colonization of Cisalpine.

As I said, I find it utterly ludicrous to assume that the bulk of the population of northern Italy derives from Roman settlers. By that logic, one would assume a sheer insane population explosion in Latium and Central Italy that permanently poured out a new number of Roman settlers that settled these newly-conquered areas. This is utterly non-consistent with the Roman Empire described in all the sources. Also, like I said, if the Cisalpine Gauls were completely or near-completely wiped out (as you consistently assert) they would not have left such a decisive mark in northern Italy.

Also, if the Cisalpine Gauls were indeed all massacred or driven away, what point would there have been for Ptolemy in the 2nd century AD to still mention the Gaulish tribes in northern Italy?

Etrusco-romano
06-09-11, 15:00
Perhaps, but consider that Livy is not the most reliable source. There is a lot in his works that are confabulations or exaggerations.



As I said, I find it utterly ludicrous to assume that the bulk of the population of northern Italy derives from Roman settlers. By that logic, one would assume a sheer insane population explosion in Latium and Central Italy that permanently poured out a new number of Roman settlers that settled these newly-conquered areas. This is utterly non-consistent with the Roman Empire described in all the sources. Also, like I said, if the Cisalpine Gauls were completely or near-completely wiped out (as you consistently assert) they would not have left such a decisive mark in northern Italy.

Also, if the Cisalpine Gauls were indeed all massacred or driven away, what point would there have been for Ptolemy in the 2nd century AD to still mention the Gaulish tribes in northern Italy?

There is also Strabo, and various Roman Annals report effective Boi drain through the Julian Alps.
I honestly do not know why Ptolemy speaks of "the Gallic tribes of Northern Italy", also because, assuming by contradiction that in Northern Italy were all descendants of the Gauls, in the second century AD the population were, at least 3 and a hal centuries, romanized. May have been referring the Gauls of France.

However, i'm not saying that all the people of northern Italy comes by the Romans, I am saying that the North Italy is the result of a mix mostly made ​​from Ligurian (which were quite numerous), Venetics and Roman colonists (who were really many), in which should be added a small percentage of Gauls survived the Roman destruction. Mediolanum, for example, whose build again by 6.000 family settlers (like 22/23.000 people) who come from all central-south italy, and when they arrive in this city where more or less 4/5.000 gauls (romans annales).

Taranis
06-09-11, 15:12
There is also Strabo, and various Roman Annals report effective Boi drain through the Julian Alps.
I honestly do not know why Ptolemy speaks of "the Gallic tribes of Northern Italy", also because, assuming by contradiction that in Northern Italy were all descendants of the Gauls, in the second century AD the population were, at least 3 and a hal centuries, romanized. May have been referring the Gauls of France.

Ptolemy explicitly talks about Italy. He mentions the towns inhabited by the various Gaulish tribes (Senones, Boii, Cenomani, Insubres and Taurini). It's obviously very likely that these were romanized by the time of Ptolemy. However, the fact that he still mentions the tribes suggests that their tribal identities must still have existed. This is only possible if a large quantity of the population is indeed pre-Roman, and not derived from recent settlers.


However, i'm not saying that all the people of northern Italy comes by the Romans, I am saying that the North Italy is the result of a mix mostly made ​​from Ligurian (which were quite numerous), Venetics and Roman colonists (who were really many), in which should be added a small percentage of Gauls survived the Roman destruction. Mediolanum, for example, whose build again by 6.000 family settlers (like 22/23.000 people) who come from all central-south italy, and when they arrive in this city where more or less 4/5.000 gauls (romans annales).

You have to consider when the Gauls arrived in northern Italy (5th century BC). It seems likely that even if the actual number of Gauls that invaded northern Italy was fairly small, this would mean that they likely absorbed a sizable amount of the pre-Gaulish population (ie. Ligurians, Etruscans and Veneti). This actually brings me to something else: if we are to assume that U152 is both Italic/Roman and Alpine-Celtic, it's likely to assume that the other related ethnic groups in northern Italy (the Veneti, and possibly also the Ligurians) themselves were carriers of U152.

Etrusco-romano
06-09-11, 15:20
Ptolemy explicitly talks about Italy. He mentions the towns inhabited by the various Gaulish tribes (Senones, Boii, Cenomani, Insubres and Taurini). It's obviously very likely that these were romanized by the time of Ptolemy. However, the fact that he still mentions the tribes suggests that their tribal identities must still have existed. This is only possible if a large quantity of the population is indeed pre-Roman, and not derived from recent settlers.




You have to consider when the Gauls arrived in northern Italy (5th century BC). It seems likely that even if the actual number of Gauls that invaded northern Italy was fairly small, this would mean that they likely absorbed a sizable amount of the pre-Gaulish population (ie. Ligurians, Etruscans and Veneti). This actually brings me to something else: if we are to assume that U152 is both Italic/Roman and Alpine-Celtic, it's likely to assume that the other related ethnic groups in northern Italy (the Veneti, and possibly also the Ligurians) themselves were carriers of U152.

I can agree that the Ligurians, Venetics and Etruscan could be carriers of the U152, also because none of these three cultures was Celtic (North Ligurians adopted the Celtic culture, but they were not Celts.)

Dorianfinder
06-09-11, 15:36
As I said, I find it utterly ludicrous to assume that the bulk of the population of northern Italy derives from Roman settlers. By that logic, one would assume a sheer insane population explosion in Latium and Central Italy that permanently poured out a new number of Roman settlers that settled these newly-conquered areas.

You hit the nail squarely on the head with this comment. A distribution map of L2* and L2+ (Z49+) should make for interesting reading.

Genetic fitness always pushes up the variance, contrary to what many think, multiples of many offspring send variance climbing as mutations have a better chance of forming when turnover rates increase. The R1b-U152 variance for Italy does not indicate any rapid population increase for R1b-U152. In fact the variance and distribution in Italy shows a more recent expansion from a confined spot in Northern Italy.

Taranis
06-09-11, 15:42
You hit the nail squarely on the head with this comment. A distribution map of L2* and L2+ (Z49+) should make for interesting reading.

Genetic fitness always pushes up the variance, contrary to what many think, multiples of many offspring send variance climbing as mutations have a better chance of forming when turnover rates increase. The R1b-U152 variance for Italy does not indicate any rapid population increase for R1b-U152. In fact the variance and distribution in Italy shows a more recent expansion from a confined spot in Northern Italy.

Are you suggesting that high variability of a Haplogroup at a spot should be interpretated as evidence of large population growth / a founder effect? And what are you exactly suggesting that this means for Italy?

Dorianfinder
06-09-11, 15:57
Are you suggesting that high variability of a Haplogroup at a spot should be interpretated as evidence of large population growth / a founder effect? And what are you exactly suggesting that this means for Italy?

Founder effect does not explain what I'm referring to here. Think of it more like a spinning wheel, the faster it spins the more wear and tear on the wheel and the more chance of a 'mutation'. Population increase is not related to a single source, but when it happens a number of males produce more offspring which leads to a multiple effect. It leads to 'false' variance or higher than normal figures. Dienekes warns NOT to estimate age or tmrca with variance that depicts this multiple effect without taking the effect of unusual growth into account.

Dorianfinder
06-09-11, 16:21
And what are you exactly suggesting that this means for Italy?

It suggests R1b-U152 in Italy has a focal point suggesting migration, settlement and gradual population increase. The confounding variable here is possible multiple migrations from other directions, eg. from Corsica to the West coast of Italy.

Now, from here the story can reach in two directions:
1. Outside group settles in North Italy and is strengthened by small additions of typically non-Italic people with U152, increasing over time.
2. Local U152 founder effect or multiple effect in Northern Italy.

In scenario 1 we would expect a low variance due to the confinement of a foreign population into a new region and other social constraints pushing genetic fitness levels lower than would otherwise be expected. This is typical of migrant or immigrant communities. They don't thrive usually.

In scenario 2 we would see elevated variance in this population due to rapid population increase. The other local U152 progenitors from other regions in Italy would create accelerated multiple effects over type increasing variance naturally as well. This is the least likely scenario of the two.

Dorianfinder
06-09-11, 17:13
Regional rank of frequency (U152+ in all men)
North Italy + Corsica = 24.9%
Switzerland = 21.7%
France = 15.2%
Germany = 12%

U152 Variance at 67 markers
North & Central France = 1.51
All France = 1.25
North Germany = 1.22
Belgium = 1.22
Hungary = 1.21
England = 1.0
Switzerland = 0.98
Italy & Switzerland = 0.96
All Italy = 0.91
Non-Alpine Italy = 0.87

These figures suggest that the Franks may also have contributed to the R1b-U152 in Italy.

Taranis
06-09-11, 18:42
So you are suggesting that Italian U152, especially northern Italian U152 has multiple sources?

Dorianfinder
06-09-11, 20:21
So you are suggesting that Italian U152, especially northern Italian U152 has multiple sources?

Correct! It is just a matter of time really ... once the SNPs are available for testing the story of what R1b-U152 subclade fits in where will become clearer to us.

Etrusco-romano
06-09-11, 20:30
I also think that the U152 in North Italy is the result of a mix of different peoples belonging precisely all'U152 (Romans, Italics, Ligurians, Venetics and a small part of Gaul), but I do not think that the issue can go beyond this (Franks, germans ecc...). If in Cisalpine Gaul there had been a large number of Gauls now you do not speak a dialect of Italian, a Romance language far from Italian as French.

spongetaro
06-09-11, 20:46
I also think that the U152 in North Italy is the result of a mix of different peoples belonging precisely all'U152 (Romans, Italics, Ligurians, Venetics and a small part of Gaul), but I do not think that the issue can go beyond this (Franks, germans ecc...). .

I might say that all the people you mention are related to a same Bell beaker group that brought R1b U152 but the Bell beaker culture didn't really take place in the Italian peninsula

http://what-when-how.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/tmp728_thumb1.jpg

Dorianfinder
06-09-11, 22:26
I also think that the U152 in North Italy is the result of a mix of different peoples belonging precisely all'U152 (Romans, Italics, Ligurians, Venetics and a small part of Gaul)

Only 2000 men have been found U152+, studies and commercial testing included. Your comment seems premature.

The U152 frequency for North Italy is suggestive of sampling error & reliability issues:
- North Italy [65N] = 43.1% U152+ (Busby)
- North Italy [34N] = 35.3% U152+ (Cruciani)
- North Italy [124N] = 26.6% U152+ (Myres)

The most significant decline in U152+ frequency was found in the much larger study.

Sile
07-09-11, 09:28
I have already explained a few weeks ago that italy in the bronze age was comprised in the north of all ligurian tribes, the alps was mostly raeti tribes from the swiss to the adriatic sea.
The ligurians where basically from modern marsellie to trieste.
Around about 800-900 BC the etruscans came from the sea and landed in southern part of etruria. Veii became the capital.
Over time they moved south to create Rome ( the tiber river was called Tuscas Amnis ) and they also moved north.
When moving north they pushed into Ligurian tribes in Lombardy and came in contact in the lower alps with the raeti. around 650BC they came in contact with the Veneti and trade was established with them in a town called Cologna Veneta , south of Verona.
Early on the etruscans where seafarers and where allied with the carthagians and there combined navies tried to wreck Greek fleets and the greek wine industry. They even kicked the greeks out of Corsica.
Around the time of the pelopennisan wars, they stopped being seafarers.

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

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

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

BTW - venetics means language, veneti means people. many people spoke venetic but where not veneti, same as many eventually spoke latin but where not Roman.

Sile
07-09-11, 09:33
I also think that the U152 in North Italy is the result of a mix of different peoples belonging precisely all'U152 (Romans, Italics, Ligurians, Venetics and a small part of Gaul), but I do not think that the issue can go beyond this (Franks, germans ecc...). If in Cisalpine Gaul there had been a large number of Gauls now you do not speak a dialect of Italian, a Romance language far from Italian as French.

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

Sile
07-09-11, 09:44
Sorry no. That is complete nonsense. First off, eludes me where you get figures like "40%" from. In particular the below part is ludicrous:



It was actually the other way round! The Boii were originally native to Bohemia and migrated from there into northern Italy (other parts of the Boii migrated into the Pannonian basin and into Anatolia), but a main part of them remained behind. The Bohemian Boii actually remained the dominant tribe in the area until their territory was ravaged by the Germanic Cimbri in the 2nd century BC. Then, in the 1st century BC the Germanic Marcomanni conquered Bohemia.

Besides that, you somehow assume that the city of Rome was some kind of "undepletable pool" that somehow inexplicibly poured out hordes and hordes of settlers that swarmed across Europe to populate the areas that the Romans had recently conquered, somethat is completely impossible to hold to any kind of historic facts.

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

Taranis
07-09-11, 10:39
a lot of internet sites have the boii originating on the modern french - german border and splitting, on e going to italy the other to bohemia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boii

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

Etrusco-romano
07-09-11, 12:38
you do understand that the isobar of the romance language which seperates western romance from eastern romances languages in an ancient divide from the time of the iron age ( celtic migration )
This divide is called the La Spezia - Rimini line

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

Taranis
07-09-11, 12:49
There is no line between North and South Italy. An Italian of the south can perfectly understand a person who speaks in the Venetian or Lombard dialect, so there is not big difference. You are taliking about "accademic line".

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

Dorianfinder
07-09-11, 15:41
I have already explained a few weeks ago that italy in the bronze age was comprised in the north of all ligurian tribes, the alps was mostly raeti tribes from the swiss to the adriatic sea.
The ligurians where basically from modern marsellie to trieste.
Around about 800-900 BC the etruscans came from the sea and landed in southern part of etruria. Veii became the capital.
Over time they moved south to create Rome ( the tiber river was called Tuscas Amnis ) and they also moved north.
When moving north they pushed into Ligurian tribes in Lombardy and came in contact in the lower alps with the raeti. around 650BC they came in contact with the Veneti and trade was established with them in a town called Cologna Veneta , south of Verona.
Early on the etruscans where seafarers and where allied with the carthagians and there combined navies tried to wreck Greek fleets and the greek wine industry. They even kicked the greeks out of Corsica.
Around the time of the pelopennisan wars, they stopped being seafarers.

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

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

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

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

Taranis
07-09-11, 18:02
Okay, so you admit U152 was carried by various invasions into Italy. The Ligurian U152 theory of yours is problematic if you claim it as a pure community and don't take into consideration that the region was under Greek influence too. I agree in part with what you said regarding the Etruscans and the introduction of Gallic-Celts who carried U152. The region of Marseille and as a consequence Liguria were heavily influenced by Greek colonization. I don't think anybody really knows when the Etruscans settled in Italy for the first time though.

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

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

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

Dorianfinder
08-09-11, 10:32
The Ligurians represent quite a bit of a problem. Some people consider them to be non-Indo-European, but evidence for this is scanty. Others consider them to be Celtic, but there is the danger of circular reasoning because the Ligurians were clearly Celtic-influences: if you say that all Celtic naming influence with the Ligurians was foreign, then it stands to reason they were a non-Celtic people. If you say that the naming influence was indigenous, then it stands to reason that they spoke a language akin to Celtic. The big problem with the Ligurian language is that we have only onomastics (place names, etc.), and no Ligurian inscriptions.

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

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

http://lh4.ggpht.com/-J8ldHxOAocY/SRRWyUISxNI/AAAAAAAACpQ/N-4P5kYfieY/s512/EtruscanMap.jpg

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

Sile
09-09-11, 08:20
If linguistics played any part in this topic, then this link seems interesting

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=owY4AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA45&dq=ligurian+veneti&hl=en#v=onepage&q=ligurian%20veneti&f=false

Handy if somone could colour that map.

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

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=yTQnOahQ4T4C&pg=PA305&dq=ligurian+veneti&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false

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

Taranis
09-09-11, 09:03
If linguistics played any part in this topic, then this link seems interesting

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=owY4AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA45&dq=ligurian+veneti&hl=en#v=onepage&q=ligurian%20veneti&f=false

Handy if somone could colour that map.

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

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b5/Iberia_300BC.svg/1000px-Iberia_300BC.svg.png


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

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=yTQnOahQ4T4C&pg=PA305&dq=ligurian+veneti&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false

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

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

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

spongetaro
10-09-11, 13:56
The Ligurians represent quite a bit of a problem. Some people consider them to be non-Indo-European, but evidence for this is scanty. Others consider them to be Celtic, but there is the danger of circular reasoning because the Ligurians were clearly Celtic-influences: if you say that all Celtic naming influence with the Ligurians was foreign, then it stands to reason they were a non-Celtic people. If you say that the naming influence was indigenous, then it stands to reason that they spoke a language akin to Celtic. The big problem with the Ligurian language is that we have only onomastics (place names, etc.), and no Ligurian inscriptions.

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

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


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

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


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c4/Val_Merveilles_-_France_-_petrogliphs_paint.jpg/800px-Val_Merveilles_-_France_-_petrogliphs_paint.jpg

http://images.wikia.com/historyatlas/images/0/09/Europe-1300bc.jpg

bertrand
12-09-11, 16:40
Hello,
Can someone give me the distribution of U152 in Switzerland and Germany?
I suspect the high concentration in switzerland is around Bern and Zurich and in Germany around Mainz and Frankfurt...
I'm trying to study the Franks versus Alamans mix
Can someone confirm?
thanks

Dorianfinder
12-09-11, 17:33
Hello Bertrand and welcome to the forum.


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

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

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

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

Taranis
12-09-11, 17:38
Regarding both the Franks and the Alemanni, I did speculate on the possibility of to what degree R1b-U152 could be Germanic. I had neglected this possibility a tad in the past, but there is a number of good reasons why and how this could have happened even if R1b-U152 was not originally Germanic:

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

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

bertrand
12-09-11, 18:19
Thank you to both of you.
Yes I agree with you Taranis. In fact the term Germanic is ambiguous, because as you pointed out, the old territory of Germany included ancient celtic tribes (southern half) and Old "truly germanic" tribes (north).
In 58BC, Cesar defeated the Suevian/Swabian Ariovist, who scholars believe was a celt.
Later, with the push south of northern tribes, the Alamans entered further in Roman territory and reached a border fringe from perhaps Mainz, through Alsace, Bern and Zurich. It seems that this "outer rim", now has the largest amount of U152, which in my opinion shows that U152 was largely present among the celts, but not only.

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

Dubhthach
12-09-11, 20:56
The supplementary data that was attached to recent report on R-M269 had the following U152 figures for Switzerland:


Switzerland Southcentral -- n = 32

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


Switzerland (Lower Rhone Valley) -- n = 51

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


Switzerland Northeast -- n = 32

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


Switzerland Northwest -- n = 27

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


Switzerland (Upper Rhone Valley) -- n = 33

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


Neighbouring countries starting with Germany:

Germany South -- n = 91

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


Germany West -- n = 100

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


Germany North -- n = 64

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


Germany East -- n = 47

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


Austria -- n = 18

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


East France -- n = 80

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


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

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


North France -- n = 68

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



Italy North -- n = 124

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


Central Italy -- n = 115

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


South Italy -- n = 252

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

bertrand
12-09-11, 21:42
Thank you; i am trying to understand where is the hot spot in Switzerland. It seems that Maciamo had more precise data. Do you know where southcentral switzerland is?
Is it south of Luzern?
In the Italian speaking region of Switzerland? I was expecting more an area around Bern or Zurich.
Thanks

Bertrand

Dubhthach
12-09-11, 22:13
Thank you; i am trying to understand where is the hot spot in Switzerland. It seems that Maciamo had more precise data. Do you know where southcentral switzerland is?
Is it south of Luzern?
In the Italian speaking region of Switzerland? I was expecting more an area around Bern or Zurich.
Thanks

Bertrand

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

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

bertrand
12-09-11, 23:52
Thank you.
This seems a little odd;
I am not aware of any prehistoric culture particularly concentrated in this region. It is neither exactly a core territory of the celts, nor that of the alamans.
Perhaps a more precise study will shed better light on this issue.
thanks again for your help

Taranis
12-09-11, 23:57
Thanks for posting this, Dubhthach.

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

bertrand
13-09-11, 00:21
Yes very good point.
Actually by studying (zooming) the maps provided on u152.org (david Faux - all U152) I notice that there is a "hole" in the U152 distribution map including Southern Alsace, Bavaria, Austria and Czech republic. But you have higher concentration around this zone.
very odd...

Dubhthach
13-09-11, 10:41
Thanks for posting this, Dubhthach.

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

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

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

Hungary -- n = 113

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


Slovenia -- n = 102

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


Czech Republic (2 Sets) -- n = 87

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


Slovakia (2 Sets) -- n = 276

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


Croatia -- n = 144

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


Croatia Mainland -- n = 108

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

Dubhthach
13-09-11, 11:17
I had only posted some of figures from France above, here are some more. I've tended to ignore any with small N count (<30)

Alpes De Haute Provence -- n = 31

U152 = 12.9%
U106 = 12.9%
L21 = 19.4%
P312 (ex L21/U152) = 29%


North Central France -- n = 91

U152 = 14.3%
U106 = 7.7%
L21 = 9.9%
P312 (ex L21/U152) = 17.6%


South Central France -- n = 89

U152 = 16.9%
U106 = 3.4%
L21 = 4.5%
P312 (ex L21/U152) = 22.5%


France South -- n = 38

U152 = 10.5%
U106 = 7.9%
L21 = 7.9%
P312 (ex L21/U152) = 28.9%


South East France -- n = 45

U152 = 11.1%
U106 = --/--
L21 = 11.1%
P312 (ex L21/U152) = 26.7%


South West France -- n = 83

U152 = 10.8%
U106 = 3.6%
L21 = 7.2% (M222 = 1.2%)
P312 (ex L21/U152) = 31.3%


Vaucluse (Upstream Rhone) -- n = 61

U152 = 14.8%
U106 = 6.6%
L21 = 8.2%
P312 (ex L21/U152) = 29.5%


Var (Coastal, E Of Rhone) -- n = 68

U152 = 19.1%
U106 = 5.9%
L21 = 2.9%
P312 (ex L21/U152) = 35.3%


North West France -- n = 115

U152 = 6.1%
U106 = 3.5%
L21 = 40%
P312 (ex L21/U152) = 20.9%

Dubhthach
13-09-11, 11:20
Here's the map from that study for U152 -- could only post it now that I've gone over 10 posts.

http://compsoc.nuigalway.ie/~dubhthach/U152-S28-poE-CT.png

Dorianfinder
13-09-11, 12:24
I'm trying to study the Franks versus Alamans mix
Can someone confirm?
thanks

R1b-U152 was only the most frequent haplogroup in Alsace, in a study of France. Alsace is not really settled by French but is ethnic German, Alamannish. R1b-U152 has a very close relationship with Alamanni distribution (present-day Alsace, Baden-Württemberg, Switzerland, Swabia region of Bavaria). R1b-U152 should not be viewed as an Alamanni genetic marker, however, apart from Corsica, Switzerland and Northern Italy, Alamanni regions appear to have the highest levels of R1b-U152.

Note that there is also a curious spot in the province of Hainaut in Belgium and Nord in Northern France, a region historically linked to the Free County of Burgandy aka the Burgundian Circle.

zanipolo
13-09-11, 12:46
in the map on post #122

It seems to me that the northern "germanic" swiss have low U152, while its interesting that the Ticino area in south east Switzerland is high. An area through history which was not occupied by the swiss or italians or germans, but the Raeti Grisons who where the last to join with the Swiss and their conferation of a republic.
Looks also like lago maggiore area.

Dubhthach
13-09-11, 13:11
Just to add Spain into the mix, I see from reading over the post there were some comments regarding L21 vs. U152 in spain, here are details from the R-M269 study recently published

Andalusia, Sevilla -- n = 127

U152 = 0.8%
U106 = 0.8%
L21 = 0.8%
P312 (ex L21/U152) = 52%


Cantabria, Santander -- n = 131

U152 = 3.1%
U106 = 1.5%
L21 = 5.3%
P312 (ex L21/U152) = 37.4%


East Spain C (Catalonia?) -- n = 177

U152 = 5.6%
U106 = 2.3%
L21 = 8.5%
P312 (ex L21/U152) = 49.7%


East Spain V (Valencia?) -- n = 168

U152 = 7.1%
U106 = 2.4%
L21 = 7.1%
P312 (ex L21/U152) = 47.6%


Valencian Community, Valencia -- n = 113

U152 = 6.2%
U106 = 0.9%
L21 = 0.9%
P312 (ex L21/U152) = 32.7%


Castille And Leon -- n = 83

U152 = 2.4%
U106 = 3.6%
L21 = 2.4%
P312 (ex L21/U152) = 47%

Dubhthach
13-09-11, 13:18
Forgot Portugal.

Central Portugal -- n = 121

U152 = 9.1%
U106 = 0.8%
L21 = 5.8%
P312 (ex L21/U152) = 38%


North Portugal -- n = 148

U152 = 3.4%
U106 = 7.4%
L21 = 4.7%
P312 (ex L21/U152) = 34.5%


Lisbon -- n = 100

U152 = 3%
U106 = 7%
L21 = 3%
P312 (ex L21/U152) = 44%


South Portugal -- n = 31

U152 = 12.9%
U106 = 7.4%
L21 = 4.7%
P312 (ex L21/U152) = 34.5%

Taranis
13-09-11, 13:37
Fascinating, especially the data on the Iberian penninsula.

Dubhthach
13-09-11, 16:18
Fascinating, especially the data on the Iberian penninsula.

It's a real pity they didn't try testing for additional P312 clades. Obviously they probably didn't know about Z196 but if they had tested for M153 and L176 it would have given a fascinating insight into the very high percentages P312* in Iberia and France.

Dorianfinder
13-09-11, 16:41
The supplementary data that was attached to recent report on R-M269 had the following U152 figures for Switzerland

Would be nice to see a reference to these figures, most have been placed in an xl. doc. by Tibor Fehér, anybody who's interested can download them here: http://www.familytreedna.com/public/R1b-U152/default.aspx?section=results under the title U152 Frequencies Worldwide (https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0Bwo12PDVxPwwYWUyMzdkNDYtZDZmNi00YTI0LWJmZ GUtZmYzMTA3MmY2NzQx&hl=en_GB) by Tibor Fehér *NEW AUGUST 2011*

Dubhthach
13-09-11, 17:43
Would be nice to see a reference to these figures, most have been placed in an xl. doc. by Tibor Fehér, anybody who's interested can download them here: http://www.familytreedna.com/public/R1b-U152/default.aspx?section=results under the title U152 Frequencies Worldwide (https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0Bwo12PDVxPwwYWUyMzdkNDYtZDZmNi00YTI0LWJmZ GUtZmYzMTA3MmY2NzQx&hl=en_GB) by Tibor Fehér *NEW AUGUST 2011*

The peopling of Europe and the cautionary tale of Y chromosome lineage R-M269 -- Data Supplement

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2011/08/18/rspb.2011.1044/suppl/DC1

bertrand
13-09-11, 18:09
Thank you very much for this map dubhthach.
It is so different from the map provided by Maciamo in august. This new map seems to infer a clearly italic background for S28.
In fact, if we assume a kurgan origin for S28 up the danube valley, it seems that the stream of immigrant arrived in Hungary and then split in two branches: one going through Slovakia, north of Bohemia and toward the elbe and Frankfurt; the other south through slovakia and northern Italy.
I read in a book detailing the history of Alsace, that the first kurgans (tumuli) are built in northern Alsace around 1600BC; the book says these tumuli people clearly come from Swabia and Bohemia.

spongetaro
13-09-11, 18:47
Thank you very much for this map dubhthach.
It is so different from the map provided by Maciamo in august. This new map seems to infer a clearly italic background for S28.


All migrations comming from Unetice spread S28. Unetice culture is not really Celtic, the Terramare and Villanovian culture that spread Italic language also have their roots in Unetice culture.

spongetaro
13-09-11, 19:02
Thanks Dubhthach
The L21 data are quite interesting. I would expect more L21 in West Germany, Northern Spain and Northern France but less in East Spain, French Alps and western switzerland as they have no direct conection with the British islands. Also southern Italy has a little bit more L21 than Northern Italy.
It looks like L21 spread in the Bronze age Wessex and Armorique (Brittany) culture but maybe also in the Rhone civilisation (south est France, Switzerland). U152 came much later with Unetice and Tumulus culture first, then with Halstat, La Tène cultures, and eventually with the Romans

Taranis
13-09-11, 19:17
What surprises me is actually U152 in Iberia. In many places, U152 is more common than L21. I wonder if the hypothesis that L21 is linked to the Atlantic Bronze Age needs to be dumped.

spongetaro
13-09-11, 19:35
What surprises me is actually U152 in Iberia. In many places, U152 is more common than L21. I wonder if the hypothesis that L21 is linked to the Atlantic Bronze Age needs to be dumped.

U152 in Portugal could be Suebic like U106.
The Atlantic bronze age might just a cultural complex like the Urnfields but not an ethnic one. However, the Armorique (Brittany) and Wessex (England) bronze age cultures could be related (same origin) according to Historian Jacques Briard.

Taranis
13-09-11, 19:46
U152 in Portugal could be Suebic like U106.

It could be, but I have also contemplated on the possibility that it stems from the Celtici (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtici).


The Atlantic bronze age might just a cultural complex like the Urnfields but not an ethnic one. However, the Armorique (Brittany) and Wessex (England) bronze age cultures could be related (same origin) according to Historian Jacques Briard.

Well, the Atlantic Bronze Age was almost certainly NOT an ethnic one, anyways, given how you have a multitude of ethnic groups which later resided in it in addition to the Celtic peoples (Aquitanians/Basques, Iberians, Lusitanians, Tartessians). The problem is that the Iberian penninsula was very heterogenous. I have even contemplated that even the various Celtic ethnicities in Iberia didn't have much in common with each other.

Nonetheless, I agree about Armorique and Wessex, however. They are good candidates for predominant carriers of L21.

Dubhthach
13-09-11, 20:09
Thanks Dubhthach
The L21 data are quite interesting. I would expect more L21 in West Germany, Northern Spain and Northern France but less in East Spain, French Alps and western switzerland as they have no direct conection with the British islands. Also southern Italy has a little bit more L21 than Northern Italy.
It looks like L21 spread in the Bronze age Wessex and Armorique (Brittany) culture but maybe also in the Rhone civilisation (south est France, Switzerland). U152 came much later with Unetice and Tumulus culture first, then with Halstat, La Tène cultures, and eventually with the Romans

Well the slightly higher rate in South Italy could be due to fact that the sample population is bigger then sample from North and Central Italy combined. I think to get honest figures you really need large sample populations otherwise you get the situation that can be seen with Austria (N=18). Of course there is also fact that Southern Italy had a history of Norman control given high levels of L21 in NW France it wouldn't surprise me if some of "South Italian" L21 comes from this source (pure speculation on my part)

They also have a map of L21 but I think they made a balls of it. unlike the maps for U152 and U106 they used a different scale. As a result you can see U152 areas that are 5-8% but not the L21 (as the scale only starts at 8%)

http://compsoc.nuigalway.ie/~dubhthach/L21-S145-poE-CT.png

verus U106

http://compsoc.nuigalway.ie/~dubhthach/U106-S21-poE-CT.png

The highest STR varience in L21 is generally in North East France/Western Germany. The guys doing language phylogenetics put the spilt between Irish and Welsh at around 900BC, spilt with Gaulish is probably earlier.

The "Lackan spearhead" which is one of oldest Iron spearheads recovered in Ireland has been dated to between 811 and 673 BC by radio-carbon dating some of the ash fragments in the spear socket.

Angela
13-09-11, 23:33
ached to recent report on R-M269 had the following U152 figures for Switzerland:


Switzerland Southcentral -- n = 32

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


Switzerland (Lower Rhone Valley) -- n = 51

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


Switzerland Northeast -- n = 32

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


Switzerland Northwest -- n = 27

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


Switzerland (Upper Rhone Valley) -- n = 33

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


Neighbouring countries starting with Germany:

Germany South -- n = 91

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


Germany West -- n = 100

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


Germany North -- n = 64

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


Germany East -- n = 47

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


Austria -- n = 18

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


East France -- n = 80

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


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

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


North France -- n = 68

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



Italy North -- n = 124

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


Central Italy -- n = 115

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


South Italy -- n = 252

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

[/QUOTE]

I haven't checked the data for the other countries, but this is not the complete data set provided by Busby et al for Italy. (see the supplementary data link that was previously posted in this thread)

Busby et al did not collect data for northern Italy. They used two studies done by other researchers: Myres et al, and Capelli et al.

The 26.6% for U-152 (as total percentage of the population) that you posted is from Myres et al, and was taken solely from a sample in Mantova, in the center of Emilia-Romagna.

However, Busby also provides data from a Capelli et al study of a sample from Bergamo, Lombardia, where U-152 constitutes 43.1% of the population. (In comparison with the figure of 34.4% in Sarnen, central Switzerland.) In this area of Italy (Lombardia), the total figure for R-M269 is 70.8%.

Any analysis of U-152 in northern Italy would have to encompass both studies.

FWIW, I believe that Maciamo's data already includes both studies.

The Corsica data is also informative, and in this instance, (central Corsica), the data was collected by Busby et al. In this most isolated area of Corsica, they found 41.7% U-152, and a total for R-M269 of 58.3%. Corsica was settled from Liguria and coastal northern Tuscany. (Indeed, the Corsican dialect is related to Tuscan).

As for central Italy, the figure you cite of 19% is from the Capelli et al study and was collected in Latina, (just south of Rome).

However, a data sample in the Busby et al supplementary data that was taken in Perugia, Umbria, for the Myres et al study (also normally considered central Italy) shows 32.4% for U-152, and 52.9% for total M-269. For some unfathomable reason, this is listed as the "Italy" sample, but the coordinates are clear.

This indicates to me that U-152 levels can go from 43% to over 30% all the way to Rome; more pervasive and over a far greater area than in Switzerland. Indeed, Busby's data shows that it reaches 15% even in Catania, Sicily.

Angela
14-09-11, 01:44
I'd like to add that the Busby et al study did not include samples from Liguria or western Emilia, where we would expect to see high levels of U-152.

Studies of R1b in northern Italy do exist and one could estimate U-152 levels. The Garfagnana (NWTuscany) has levels of 76%, one area of the Trentino 73%, and Modena in Western Emilia, has 67%. A U-152 level of 50-60% would bring the level in the Garfagnana to perhaps 46%.


I have yet to see any reason to connect U-152 to any Germanic tribe, Alemanni, Gothic, Lombard, or otherwise.

The highest levels are in Italy, not Switzerland or southern Germany. (I am currently an agnostic as far as Y-STR variance is concerned, and its connection to geographical origin.)

Indeed, it is high all the way to Rome, and at respectable levels even in Puglia and Sicily.

Central Corsica and coastal Tuscany are also hardly hotbeds of mass Germanic movement.

Indeed, there is very little historical or archaeological evidence of the movement of Germanic peoples into Italy sufficient to change the basic genetic landscape of the peninsula. I have seen no claim by any archaeologist or historian that the Ostrogoths and Franks were anything other than a very thin layer of nobles and military commanders, and even the Lombards, who did move as family groups, were relatively small in number.

Paul the Deacon , a Lombard monk whose writings are based on the only contemporary account of the Lombards, puts the number of their warriors at around 22,000. Adding family members would only bring the figure to perhaps 100,000, at a time when even the most conservative estimates place the population of the Italian peninsula at 2.5-3 million. I have seen no numbers for the Goths that are any higher.

These figures come from recent books published by Oxford and Cambridge professors, as the posters here seem to find Italian sources unreliable. FWIW, most of the German sources I've seen are more in line with the Italian numbers.\

See, The Fall of Rome and the End of Civilization, by Bryan Ward-Perkins (2005), and Empires and Barbarians by Peter Heather.

From the latter book, "immigrant Ostrogoths would have amounted to no more than 2 percent" of the total population of the peninsula. As the Lombard contingent appears to be of approximately the same size, we are talking about 5% of the population, which would include ALL the different y-dna clades of the invaders.

Furthermore, these invasions proceeded from the north east, through the Veneto, and there seems to be more settlements in that area, while U-152 is by every study I've seen, and FTDNA groups, higher in the northwest than in the northeast.

I would also be very surprised that a Germanic population could bring extraordinary levels of U-152, and very small levels of U-106.

Taranis
14-09-11, 01:56
Angela, thanks for posting this! I would like to address a few specific issues:

- regarding the connection to U152, if U152 is not exclusively Italic and the spread of U152 north of the Alps is not exclusively due to the expansion of the Roman Empire (which I find very hard to believe, for a multitude of reasons I addressed earlier in this thread, due to comparably high levels of U152 in areas with limited or not Roman influence), then it stands to reason that a sizable part of the Celtic population became absorbed by Celtic tribes as they moved southwards. It would hence be plausible that the Germanic tribes (especially the Alemannic, but also the Franks and some others) would become carriers of U152.

- I do not believe that Italian U152 is solely of Germanic origin (that would be impossible), and I agree that their effect would be minor. However, for reasons described above, the possibility of Germanic U152 cannot be ruled out.

- In my opinion, it is very likely there is an Italic component to U152, but we should not be fooled by the highest concentrations today. It's possible that U152 was more common in certain areas in the past, especially if you subtract the Germanic and Slavic migrations.

Sile
14-09-11, 09:09
All migrations comming from Unetice spread S28. Unetice culture is not really Celtic, the Terramare and Villanovian culture that spread Italic language also have their roots in Unetice culture.

The Unetrician was at Rhone and northern italy, it was called the Polada culture and was based around lake Garda, a lake that divides Lombardy from Veneto

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

http://nuke.costumilombardi.it/Portals/0/k%C3%A0%20cartina%20Polada%20297.jpg

It was no celtic origin.

BTW, some scholars refer to celtic only as a language and some as a ethnic group, we have the same issue here. I wish we can decide between each other, which one it is.

Taranis
14-09-11, 11:16
The highest STR varience in L21 is generally in North East France/Western Germany. The guys doing language phylogenetics put the spilt between Irish and Welsh at around 900BC, spilt with Gaulish is probably earlier.

The "Lackan spearhead" which is one of oldest Iron spearheads recovered in Ireland has been dated to between 811 and 673 BC by radio-carbon dating some of the ash fragments in the spear socket.

Sorry, I didn't see this until now, but I am not sure if this is even possible, especially the latter. Brythonic (including Welsh) is closer with Gaulish than it is with Goidelic (Irish). The problem is that none of the modern Celtic languages are particularly representative here. Even Goidelic in Antiquity was much closer to Gaulish.

Having said that, the arrival of iron-working on the British Isles could have brought about the arrival of P-Celtic languages in Britain. Ireland in contrast was only peripherially influenced, and adopted iron-working and religious elements from Hallstatt/La-Tene, but not the language.

Dubhthach
14-09-11, 13:29
Sorry, I didn't see this until now, but I am not sure if this is even possible, especially the latter. Brythonic (including Welsh) is closer with Gaulish than it is with Goidelic (Irish). The problem is that none of the modern Celtic languages are particularly representative here. Even Goidelic in Antiquity was much closer to Gaulish.

Having said that, the arrival of iron-working on the British Isles could have brought about the arrival of P-Celtic languages in Britain. Ireland in contrast was only peripherially influenced, and adopted iron-working and religious elements from Hallstatt/La-Tene, but not the language.

Well Irish and Welsh are closer to each other then either are to Gaulish. Gaulish includes sound changes that aren't present in either. There is also the fact that Welsh and Irish contain features not found in Gaulish specifically on word order, initial mutations etc

At an ancient level all three languages would have been remarkably close. I would think it's fairly equivalent to the differences in Germany in modern era between "dialects" based off different sound changes in German. There's also the fact that Irish and Welsh probably formed a Sprachbund during the early Christian period (400-900AD) due to influence of Christian missionaries from the "British" (Brythonic church)

Old Irish -> Modern Irish is fairly equivalent in some ways to gap between "late Vulgar Latin" and say Italian. Of course if you look at the surviving corpus of "Archaic Irish" (Goidelic) on Ogham stones etc it's shows the most similiarity to Gaulish other then obvious sound changes that occur in Gaulish.

The comparision was between Old Irish and Old Welsh.

My own theory is that you had a wide dispersial of "Proto-Celtic" (Common-Celtic) over a wide area at an early stage. The rise of the Q->P sound shift probably goes hand in hand with the increasing importance of Hallstat/La Tène material culture. It probably arose in the core area and then radiated out. This can be compared with for example the High German consonant shift, where for example þ/ð→d also occurs in Dutch which otherwise doesn't take part in the other sound shifts. Old English of course didn't take part in the shift at all.

Interesting enough some of the surviving Gaulish corpus particulary from "South Gaul" doesn't show the Q -> P sound shift.

I should point out that though I'm not a 1st language speaker of Irish (Gaeilgeoir), I'm fairly fluent having done most of my primary school education through the medium of Irish (I'm listening to Radió na Gaeltachta atm)

At a basic level a sound shift doesn't necessarily pose a major issue with communiciation. As I'm from the west of Ireland I myself take part in a modern sound shift that differentiates my Irish from that of someone from say Munster (very south).

/n/ is realized as [r] (or is replaced by /r/) after consonants other than [s]

This occurs in Connacht and Ulster Irish (2 of three dialects) as well as in Scottish Gáidhlig and Manx, now the words are still spelt with an n eg. Cnoc (hill) -- now this doesn't pose a communicative issue at all. If I'm talking to a speaker of munster Irish (or "school Irish" for that fact) they'd pronunce it as K-nuk whereas I'd say Kr-uk --

The shift is probably at least 800-1000 years old, of course having a unified orthography that didn't take notice of change probably helped as well (θ -> h shifted across all around same time but is still spelt as "th")

Taranis
14-09-11, 13:54
I would like to say that however that Brythonic and Gaulish are (or more properly, were) closer. "Old Brythonic" (the language spoken in Britain in Antiquity, which was the ancestor language of Breton, Cornish and Welsh) did have innovations in common with Gaulish which are not found in the Goidelic languages:

- The *Kw to *P shift is one feature, but since this also occured in Osco-Umbrian and Greek, you might argue that this occured in Brythonic after Gaulish and Brythonic split. However, there are other features, which is why I cannot get tired to say that the Q-Celtic/P-Celtic division is a simplification, and Gaulish and Brythonic have more in common than being P-Celtic. I agree though that this shift most probably goes hand-in-hand with the Hallstatt/La-Tene period.

- The shift from *nm- to *nw-. This is found in the word for 'name': it's "Anwana" in Gaulish, "Enw" in Welsh and "Anw" in Breton. In contrast, it's "Ainm" in Irish and Scots Gaelic, which is closer to what would have been the proto-Celtic form ("Anmana" - compare English/German "Name", Latin "Nomen").

- Brythonic and Gaulish have a shift from *ml and *mr to *bl and *br, respectively. It is true that the Goidelic languages also made such an innovation, but at a later point: Old Irish still had the original (Proto-Celtic) condition in respect for this sound law, whereas the shift only occured in Middle Irish (the actual ancestor language of modern Irish, Manx Gaelic and Scots Gaelic). Examples for this sound law would be:

Gaulish/Galatian "Brogos", Welsh/Breton "Bro", but Old Irish "Mruig".

Another example would be Welsh "Brad", Breton "Breud", Gaulish "Bratu", but Old Irish "Mrath". A non-Celtic cognate for comparison would be Greek "Martys" (witness, or 'martyr', which is where the English word derives from).

A third example would be Gaulish "Blaton", Breton "Bleud", Welsh "Blawd" but Old Irish "Mleith". For a non-Celtic cognate (to show that Old Irish was closer to the original) compare with German "Mehl" (flour).

So as you can see, there's a number of sound laws in Gaulish and Brythonic that are/were absent in Goidelic. An interesting aspect here is that ancient Goidelic (even Archaic Irish, as found in the Ogham inscriptions 4th through 6th century AD) was fairly close to Proto-Celtic, even closer than Gaulish.

You brought up a very good point about the sprachbund in the early Christian period. In my opinion, this is where most of the so-called "Insular Celtic" features (found in Goidelic and Brythonic, but absent in other branches of Celtic) come from, in particular, making away with the elaborate declension system that the 'Continental' Celtic languages have in common with other old Indo-European languages such as Latin, Greek and Sanskrit.

spongetaro
14-09-11, 20:52
The Unetrician was at Rhone and northern italy, it was called the Polada culture and was based around lake Garda, a lake that divides Lombardy from Veneto

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

http://nuke.costumilombardi.it/Portals/0/k%C3%A0%20cartina%20Polada%20297.jpg

It was no celtic origin.

BTW, some scholars refer to celtic only as a language and some as a ethnic group, we have the same issue here. I wish we can decide between each other, which one it is.


The Polada culture of Northern Italy and the Rhone civilisation have all their origin in the Unetice culture.
The Polada culture is the origin of the Terramare culture.
Both Terramare and Rhone civilisation could be the Ligurian according to Bernard Sergent.

The Ligurian are something between the Italic and Celtic people but according to Sergent they share more affinities with the celtic one.
Both Celtic and Ligurian (via Polada and Rhone civilisation) languages have their origin in the Unetice culture.
http://forum.arbre-celtique.com/download/file.php?id=420&t=1

http://nuke.costumilombardi.it/Portals/0/k%C3%A0%20cartina%20Polada%20297.jpg

spongetaro
14-09-11, 20:59
When Terramare people invaded the Peninsula from the North, they pushed the Apeninne people southward. That could explain the amount of haplogroup G2a in the Apeninne mountains.

http://condor.depaul.edu/sbucking/apennine_culture.jpg

http://forum.arbre-celtique.com/download/file.php?id=421&t=1

according to this map, the Terramares people came directly from the Tumulus culture like the Celts.

zanipolo
15-09-11, 09:37
When Terramare people invaded the Peninsula from the North, they pushed the Apeninne people southward. That could explain the amount of haplogroup G2a in the Apeninne mountains.

http://condor.depaul.edu/sbucking/apennine_culture.jpg

http://forum.arbre-celtique.com/download/file.php?id=421&t=1

according to this map, the Terramares people came directly from the Tumulus culture like the Celts.


This does not make sense.

The scenario is that the majority of the PO valley was underwater no one lived there and so G2a people just migrated in the Alps and then south following the Apennine mountain range which runs the majority down the length of the italian peninsula.

spongetaro
15-09-11, 10:04
This does not make sense.

The scenario is that the majority of the PO valley was underwater no one lived there and so G2a people just migrated in the Alps and then south following the Apennine mountain range which runs the majority down the length of the italian peninsula.

The Polada and Terramares people built constructions on pile-dwellings
Nowadays, G2a is very low in the PO Valley but strong in the Alpes and Apennines mountains. R1b U152 may have been brought by Terramares people from Central Europe (Unetice). This could explain theG2a hole in Northern Italy

zanipolo
15-09-11, 10:59
The Polada and Terramares people built constructions on pile-dwellings
Nowadays, G2a is very low in the PO Valley but strong in the Alpes and Apennines mountains. R1b U152 may have been brought by Terramares people from Central Europe (Unetice). This could explain theG2a hole in Northern Italy

Unsure, but thinking logically, my theory would explain the G2a hole due to the water and later when it resided the ligurian people would have slowly occupied the po valley before etryuscans or veneti arrived.

It was said that the raeti stayed in the alps and only touched the adriatic sea where the alps meets it

Taranis
15-09-11, 10:59
Unsure, but thinking logically, my theory would explain the G2a hole due to the water and later when it resided the ligurian people would have slowly occupied the po valley before etryuscans or veneti arrived.

It was said that the raeti stayed in the alps and only touched the adriatic sea where the alps meets it

I think you are plain and simply misinterpretating that map...

zanipolo
15-09-11, 11:12
I think you are plain and simply misinterpretating that map...

You mean that it was not water and swampy area in the civilta di Polada map?

It was noted that from turin to venice was underwater in ancient times.

Edit:It was piacenza to venice which was under water

At the end of the Messinian the ocean broke through the sill and the Mediterranean refilled. The Adriatic transgressed into all of northern Italy. In the subsequent Pliocene (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pliocene) sedimentary outwash primarily from the Apennines filled the valley and the central Adriatic generally to a depth of 1,000 m (3,300 ft) to 2,000 m (6,600 ft) but from 2,000 m (6,600 ft) to 3,000 m (9,800 ft) off the current mouth of the Po, with pockets as deep as 6,000 m (20,000 ft). At the start of the Pleistocene (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleistocene) the valley was full. Cycles of transgression and regression are detectable in the valley and the Adriatic as far as its centre and in the southern Adriatic.
From the Pleistocene alternation of maritime and alluvial sediments occur as far west as Piacenza (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piacenza). The exact sequences at various locations have been studied extensively. Apparently the sea advanced and receded over the valley in conformance to an equilibrium between sedimentation and glacial advance or recession at 100,000-year intervals and 100 m (330 ft) to 120 m (390 ft) fluctuation of sea level. An advance began after the Last Glacial Maximum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Glacial_Maximum) around 20,000 years ago, which brought the Adriatic to a high point at about 5500 years ago.[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Po_%28river%29#cite_note-7)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Po_%28river%29

Britanicus
31-01-13, 20:57
Hello All
I have been involved in genealogical research and DNA since FtDNA and others started up about ten years ago. I am very much just an interested observer, mainly trying to find my DNA origins.
I am an Englishman by birth, which brings up the first post by Etrusco Romano...re a Roman origin for u152. My family comes from Chelmsford in Essex, which was Caesaromagus in Roman times....obviously an important place to the Romans.
I have been very interested in the story put forward by Dr Linda Malcor, that King Arthurs Knights were Sarmatian.
I have recently gotten results from Geno 2.0, and my strongest result by MY measurement, is Romania... which is basically the same thing for a Sarmatian link.

But here is the real point. In the samples from Sardinia in the NatGeno project, one person, an I2a I believe, is PF4363.
I am also PF4363, but u152+.
I am wondering what the more educated people here ( than I ) might make of this.

Thanks for any ideas or imaginings. Thats half the fun.
Richard C

sparkey
31-01-13, 21:07
I have been very interested in the story put forward by Dr Linda Malcor, that King Arthurs Knights were Sarmatian.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that they were more likely Britons. If they existed. Who were some of King Arthur's knights, anyway? I explored that here (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/27431-The-original-knights-of-King-Arthur-s-court).


But here is the real point. In the samples from Sardinia in the NatGeno project, one person, an I2a I believe, is PF4363.
I am also PF4363, but u152+.
I am wondering what the more educated people here ( than I ) might make of this.

It is meaningless. It is probably a mutation that occurs in multiple haplogroups, or Geno 2.0's testing of it is faulty (which has happened in a few cases in it).

Britanicus
31-01-13, 23:51
Hello Sparkey
Thanks for your response. I have my own strong opinions as to what person may have led to the mythology of Arthur . It is accepted that SOMEONE was there, and these stories originated somewhere. I lived in Somerset , near the very hill where the events in the Mabinogion took place ( making saddles and shoes), and speak a little Welsh ( British), so I don't take on the Sarmatian idea lightly... it is very convincing. In fact, the Sarmatian Dragon Banner may be the origin of the Welsh flag.
That being said, I was not really looking to debate the Arthurian origination ideas, but whether or not anyone saw a link to a Romanian, Thracian origin for myself, at least in what I am suggesting.

The admins of the u152 project see PF 4363 as a stable SNP.
I was also supporting the original posters idea of a Roman origin for u152, although of course, it is much older than that.. perhaps Ligurian... but apparently it is not singularly a Celtic marker.
I also think that where u152 is found, it fairly well shows the limits of Roman expansion.

The Sardinian U152, pretty well shows it is not a Celtic marker, unless those people samples migrated to Sardinia after the La Ten e period.

Anyway, I think my questions cant be answered at the present time anyway.
Rich

sparkey
01-02-13, 00:31
Hello Sparkey
Thanks for your response. I have my own strong opinions as to what person may have led to the mythology of Arthur . It is accepted that SOMEONE was there, and these stories originated somewhere.

It is? You mean that they originated based on a real person? I'm in the "mythological Arthur" camp, although admittedly not strongly so.


That being said, I was not really looking to debate the Arthurian origination ideas, but whether or not anyone saw a link to a Romanian, Thracian origin for myself, at least in what I am suggesting.

Let's take the discussion elsewhere, it's interesting. We actually have an old thread called The Sarmatians in Britain! (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/26966-The-Sarmatians-in-Britain!).


The admins of the u152 project see PF 4363 as a stable SNP.
I was also supporting the original posters idea of a Roman origin for u152, although of course, it is much older than that.. perhaps Ligurian... but apparently it is not singularly a Celtic marker.
I also think that where u152 is found, it fairly well shows the limits of Roman expansion.

The Sardinian U152, pretty well shows it is not a Celtic marker, unless those people samples migrated to Sardinia after the La Ten e period.

Anyway, I think my questions cant be answered at the present time anyway.
Rich

What is the geographic distribution of R1b>U152>PF4363? Most U152 is Western/Central European, and it tends to have high diversity around France IIRC. Sure, it's not a Celtic marker singularly, but in the context of the British Isles, it appears that it often is Celtic. Of course, the Romans, and to a significantly lesser degree, Germanic peoples, likely carried it as well. But regardless, you have an uphill battle if you're seeking to demonstrate any U152 as Thracian or Sarmatian. I have yet to see evidence of apparently Thracian R1b>L11 subclades, and I doubt Sarmatians had any, either. If you were something more curious like R1b L11-, then you'd have a case right out of the gates. But as is, you'll need a convincing geographic diversity analysis...

Britanicus
01-02-13, 01:08
Re Uphill Battle
I agree. The main DNA for both peoples is different than u152... but as the DNA originated some thousands of years before the historical events mentioned, there must have been banishments, rapes, NPE's, migrations etc. I just don't see any DNA haplogroup being either this or that, particularly in historical times. Getting a DNA for the Legions would be like taking a small sampling of UN Emergency Force troops, and deciding on a particular DNA as being representative .

Haplogroups are one part of the picture, with STR and Autosomal being another.
I still think that an Englishman eating Fish and Chips, a German eating sauerkraut, and an Italian eating pasta for two thousand years, should result in some sort of DNA difference. But apparently, it doesn't.

I mentioned my Geno SNP showed Romania as strongest, my autosomal showing Tuscany as strongest, and now I have something different ( PF 4363) in a Sardinian... I think if we mix it up in a blender..... I wonder where the Sardinian originated, you see. Most I2A in Sardinia ... hmmm, well I2a is prevalent in Bosnia I think. You see where I am going.

Romania> Bosnia> Sardinia> Tuscany > Rome sort of thing. Perhaps one day we shall find out.
Later mate
Rich

geiserich
02-02-13, 18:45
Hi Britanicus,

I agree with you in your general view.
But you are wrong in believing, that you and this Sardinian guy share common heritage.
His haplogroup is I and yours is R, so it is a parallel mutation.
Hope you will find a second member of your clade.
I`m interested in testing PF4363, because I`m U152*
Do you know, if there is an other (cheaper) way than Geno 2.0.

Dorianfinder
05-02-13, 11:34
Hi Britanicus,

I agree with you in your general view.
But you are wrong in believing, that you and this Sardinian guy share common heritage.
His haplogroup is I and yours is R, so it is a parallel mutation.
Hope you will find a second member of your clade.
I`m interested in testing PF4363, because I`m U152*
Do you know, if there is an other (cheaper) way than Geno 2.0.

Family Tree DNA offers a test for PF4363 at $29 but I suggest you discuss your particular STR values with the admin of the U152 subclades project before making a decision. Good luck!
http://www.familytreedna.com/public/R1b-U152/default.aspx?vgroup=R1b-U152&vgroup=R1b-U152&section=ycolorized

brianco
06-02-13, 18:30
Hi

I couldn't find PF4363 in the SNP advance orders, do you know if it is labelled something else on FTDNA?

Thanks


Family Tree DNA offers a test for PF4363 at $29 but I suggest you discuss your particular STR values with the admin of the U152 subclades project before making a decision. Good luck!
http://www.familytreedna.com/public/R1b-U152/default.aspx?vgroup=R1b-U152&vgroup=R1b-U152&section=ycolorized

Maciamo
06-02-13, 19:35
Hi

I couldn't find PF4363 in the SNP advance orders, do you know if it is labelled something else on FTDNA?

Thanks

I was under the impression that the PF series of SNP's were only for the Geno 2.0 test.

Dorianfinder
06-02-13, 23:25
Hi

I couldn't find PF4363 in the SNP advance orders, do you know if it is labelled something else on FTDNA?

Thanks

My apologies, the PF4363 SNP is only available from the Geno 2.0 test. Thank-you Maciamo for correcting me, I am human.

Britanicus
08-02-13, 02:12
Yes, apparently it is only through GENO. The thought at u 152 admin is that my PF4363 MAY be a clan marker. My two closest matches are taking the test also. So, under u 152, PF4363 may be a clan marker. This would be something, for sure.
Both my matches probably occurred within 12 generations. But the question is, where is the origin point for u 152 ? And then, what clan would that signify ? I have strong hints from Geno, DNA Tribes etc, of links to Tuscany and the Aegaen/ Thrace, with Romania being very strong. I am an Englishman... so how did my ancestor get into Britain ?

Spartacus, of course, was a "Celtic" Thracian Gladiator, and probably u152.
Got to dig up the dead I think, once Ydna on ancient remains gets somewhere. Until then, we are only guessing.
The admin of our project, himself a u152 * previously, is a Hungarian I THINK of Romanian descent... but is not PF4363.

Of course, my post was due to the idea that this DNA spread about through the movements of the Roman Legions. It is found in China to Britain, pretty well following the limits of the Roman Empire. This is my present thought , which changes often :-)
Rich

Taranis
08-02-13, 23:04
Hmm. Interesting thread revival.

I'm still not convinced that U152 is of "Roman" origin: more specifically, I do not think that it is associated in any way with the Italic tribes of pre-Roman Italy. The reason for this is that the diversity for U152 (especially the distribution of it's main subclades L2, Z36 and Z56) is greater north of the Alps than south of it. I'm also under the impression that there is more diversity of U152 in Britain than in Italy.

I mean sure, much of U152's distribution can probably be explained by movements inside the Roman Empire, especially places like North Africa. But with Britain, my money is more though on Iron Age tribes than the Roman legionaires or Sarmatians...

MOESAN
08-02-13, 23:20
Yes, apparently it is only through GENO. The thought at u 152 admin is that my PF4363 MAY be a clan marker. My two closest matches are taking the test also. So, under u 152, PF4363 may be a clan marker. This would be something, for sure.
Both my matches probably occurred within 12 generations. But the question is, where is the origin point for u 152 ? And then, what clan would that signify ? I have strong hints from Geno, DNA Tribes etc, of links to Tuscany and the Aegaen/ Thrace, with Romania being very strong. I am an Englishman... so how did my ancestor get into Britain ?

Spartacus, of course, was a "Celtic" Thracian Gladiator, and probably u152.
Got to dig up the dead I think, once Ydna on ancient remains gets somewhere. Until then, we are only guessing.
The admin of our project, himself a u152 * previously, is a Hungarian I THINK of Romanian descent... but is not PF4363.

Of course, my post was due to the idea that this DNA spread about through the movements of the Roman Legions. It is found in China to Britain, pretty well following the limits of the Roman Empire. This is my present thought , which changes often :-)
Rich

Sincerely, Y-R1b-U152 has very few chances to be of Romanian origin: and "romanian" is a confusing definition here: ethnic? geographic? for we know at this point U152 as the majority of occidental Y-R1bs was born around the Switzerland Alps or maybe before being pushed forwards in Austria, when, nobody is sure of a precise date, maybe before the definitive ruprure between celtic and italic?
- Sarmatians, always according to our present knowledge, had more chances to be of Y-R1a + some north Caucasus Y-G2a + some possible Y-I2a1 and Y-J2a without speek about some other "asian" HGs picked here and there, as Y-Q or Y-T and even Y-O or Y-N (I don't speek yet about some incorporated other carpathian "neolithical" HGs

Finalise
08-02-13, 23:28
Yes y-chromosome frequncies associated with linguistic families. Good job guys. Amazing proof you have here. Nothing stupid about these types of assumptions.

Do you people not realize that even the Indo-Europeans were not uniform to begin with considering they existed up to 6000 years ago?

You start with a wrong assumption to begin with, then those R1b spread into Europe. Another wrong assumption. And then split into Celtic, Germanic, blah, blah...

In Europe, linguistic families have almost nothing to do with ethnicity, or haplogroups. But keep going discussing U123x3423423 R1bs.

I'd like all of you experts to connect your stupid ideas with mtDna information, and try to make sense out of that. But you wouldn't and you can't because all your assumptions are wrong to begin with.

Just because one region has a 40% frequency of one haplogroup, it does not mean 40% of those people there were descended from one uniform group of people who carried that haplogroup. It could be even something as low as 1%.





Please if you want to do genetic research stick to autosomal DNA, and even that has its faults too, but its not pseudo-bullshit like this haplogroup crap.

GloomyGonzales
09-02-13, 11:31
Hmm. Interesting thread revival.

I'm still not convinced that U152 is of "Roman" origin: more specifically, I do not think that it is associated in any way with the Italic tribes of pre-Roman Italy. The reason for this is that the diversity for U152 (especially the distribution of it's main subclades L2, Z36 and Z56) is greater north of the Alps than south of it. I'm also under the impression that there is more diversity of U152 in Britain than in Italy.

I mean sure, much of U152's distribution can probably be explained by movements inside the Roman Empire, especially places like North Africa. But with Britain, my money is more though on Iron Age tribes than the Roman legionaires or Sarmatians...


Stop dreaming guys U152 is Ligurian. It perfectly matches Ligurian expansions in France and Iberia and later when North Italy was conquered by Romans spread of Roman Empire to the East, Central Europe and Britain. R1b folks are Ibero-Ligurians came in Europe with non-IE Cardium Pottery or Cardial Ware.
5811

zanipolo
09-02-13, 12:09
take note:

Geno 2.0 use DNATribes map for geography...........so its slightly different , as an example southern Italy is part of what they term Greek, germany and austira combined........any way check DNAtribes and you can see this reference map.
look what they mean by Romanian

http://www.dnatribes.com/dnatribes-europa.html
these are the groupings

zanipolo
09-02-13, 12:24
Sincerely, Y-R1b-U152 has very few chances to be of Romanian origin: and "romanian" is a confusing definition here: ethnic? geographic? for we know at this point U152 as the majority of occidental Y-R1bs was born around the Switzerland Alps or maybe before being pushed forwards in Austria, when, nobody is sure of a precise date, maybe before the definitive ruprure between celtic and italic?
- Sarmatians, always according to our present knowledge, had more chances to be of Y-R1a + some north Caucasus Y-G2a + some possible Y-I2a1 and Y-J2a without speek about some other "asian" HGs picked here and there, as Y-Q or Y-T and even Y-O or Y-N (I don't speek yet about some incorporated other carpathian "neolithical" HGs

The migrational paths, the steppes, anatolia, alps, balkans, italy, france, spain, germany and others have many HG markers, the isolated places like ireland which has 90%plus of R1B are a different "beast"

zanipolo
09-02-13, 12:26
Yes y-chromosome frequncies associated with linguistic families. Good job guys. Amazing proof you have here. Nothing stupid about these types of assumptions.

Do you people not realize that even the Indo-Europeans were not uniform to begin with considering they existed up to 6000 years ago?

You start with a wrong assumption to begin with, then those R1b spread into Europe. Another wrong assumption. And then split into Celtic, Germanic, blah, blah...

In Europe, linguistic families have almost nothing to do with ethnicity, or haplogroups. But keep going discussing U123x3423423 R1bs.

I'd like all of you experts to connect your stupid ideas with mtDna information, and try to make sense out of that. But you wouldn't and you can't because all your assumptions are wrong to begin with.

Just because one region has a 40% frequency of one haplogroup, it does not mean 40% of those people there were descended from one uniform group of people who carried that haplogroup. It could be even something as low as 1%.





Please if you want to do genetic research stick to autosomal DNA, and even that has its faults too, but its not pseudo-bullshit like this haplogroup crap.

bravo

liguistics with gentics do not align nor does religion either

Dorianfinder
11-02-13, 21:07
Hmm. Interesting thread revival.

I'm still not convinced that U152 is of "Roman" origin: more specifically, I do not think that it is associated in any way with the Italic tribes of pre-Roman Italy. The reason for this is that the diversity for U152 (especially the distribution of it's main subclades L2, Z36 and Z56) is greater north of the Alps than south of it. I'm also under the impression that there is more diversity of U152 in Britain than in Italy.

I mean sure, much of U152's distribution can probably be explained by movements inside the Roman Empire, especially places like North Africa. But with Britain, my money is more though on Iron Age tribes than the Roman legionaires or Sarmatians...

Yes, the Iron Age diffusion/invasion model of how the majority of U152 entered the British isles is a plausible idea backed by evidence from a range of scientific fields. Allow me to add that the L2 subclade of U152 is probably older than was first thought and may even point to a dispersal that commenced sometime during the late Bronze Age perhaps.

Pi gman
11-02-13, 22:11
Dorianfinder,

Is it possible that L2 and in my case Z49,Z142 were Greek in the Bronze age?

Pi gman
11-02-13, 22:22
Think I just answered my own question. L2 is 2,500 YBP. Putting it at about 500 BCE. Question though maybe still in Greece then?

Dorianfinder
16-02-13, 16:00
Dorianfinder,

Is it possible that L2 and in my case Z49,Z142 were Greek in the Bronze age?

L2 as we all know is the largest branch of U152 and has spread across most of Europe. Therefore it is difficult to say exactly where your specific Z142 branch was based. I think that Tibor from the U152 subclades project was correct when he said that we need more U152 samples from the Balkans and without the Balkans we cannot be certain about the origins of U152.

My understanding is that Greece and it's colonies attracted people from all over Europe from as early if not earlier than the Bronze Age. This means that there probably was an Hellenic U152, an Italic U152 and a Gallic U152 and so forth etc. Movement across the Mediterranean was not uncommon and the Roman Age emanated with the 'help' of a pre-Christian era gene flow from Hellenic city states. I believe that as U152 moved from early Celtic settlements to Greece so too U152 moved from Greece to Marseille, Liguria and Venice later on. The Dorians may have carried some U152 into Bronze Age Greece... the Dorian Sabines moved to Italy where they introduced an Hellenic U152 population into the already established Italic U152 population etc.

Maciamo and I have debated for and against Roman U152 into Greece. I believe the Greek island population has too much U152 and is genetically too diverse to assume that Romans ran riot and spread their seed throughout the far flung and isolated reaches of Greece. The application and validity of inference using frequency data is limited within the Greek context as it's civilization was far more advanced than other parts of ancient Europe, meaning a larger population already stationed in Greece when U152 was formed in our common ancestor. It is also necessary to consider the gene flow from Greece, Anatolia and the Levant into Italy and Provence during more recent times such as after the fall of Constantinople in 1453. It is also interesting to note that despite the re-population of the Peloponnese and Crete with Arabs and Ottoman Turks, we continue to find the largest amounts of U152 in these ancient Dorian strongholds. Where Maciamo's theory lacks support is that U152 is concentrated in the poor communities located in the far eastern corner of Crete and in Apokorona, the heart of Greek resistance against the Venetian authorities. I have to add that Venetians were not devoid of Greek influence themselves. A few Greek families such as the Phocas (Calergis) and Armenis (d'Armer) families were influential in both the Greek and Venetian communities. These family branches were ethnically Greek and culturally Venetian.

To suggest a linear hypothesis would be naive I think. It is worth emphasizing the cultural and militaristic package that remained almost intact from the age of Alexander to the Angevin rulers of Naples, Sicily and Greece.

zanipolo
16-02-13, 20:29
L2 as we all know is the largest branch of U152 and has spread across most of Europe. Therefore it is difficult to say exactly where your specific Z142 branch was based. I think that Tibor from the U152 subclades project was correct when he said that we need more U152 samples from the Balkans and without the Balkans we cannot be certain about the origins of U152.

My understanding is that Greece and it's colonies attracted people from all over Europe from as early if not earlier than the Bronze Age. This means that there probably was an Hellenic U152, an Italic U152 and a Gallic U152 and so forth etc. Movement across the Mediterranean was not uncommon and the Roman Age emanated with the 'help' of a pre-Christian era gene flow from Hellenic city states. I believe that as U152 moved from early Celtic settlements to Greece so too U152 moved from Greece to Marseille, Liguria and Venice later on. The Dorians may have carried some U152 into Bronze Age Greece... the Dorian Sabines moved to Italy where they introduced an Hellenic U152 population into the already established Italic U152 population etc.

Maciamo and I have debated for and against Roman U152 into Greece. I believe the Greek island population has too much U152 and is genetically too diverse to assume that Romans ran riot and spread their seed throughout the far flung and isolated reaches of Greece. The application and validity of inference using frequency data is limited within the Greek context as it's civilization was far more advanced than other parts of ancient Europe, meaning a larger population already stationed in Greece when U152 was formed in our common ancestor. It is also necessary to consider the gene flow from Greece, Anatolia and the Levant into Italy and Provence during more recent times such as after the fall of Constantinople in 1453. It is also interesting to note that despite the re-population of the Peloponnese and Crete with Arabs and Ottoman Turks, we continue to find the largest amounts of U152 in these ancient Dorian strongholds. Where Maciamo's theory lacks support is that U152 is concentrated in the poor communities located in the far eastern corner of Crete and in Apokorona, the heart of Greek resistance against the Venetian authorities. I have to add that Venetians were not devoid of Greek influence themselves. A few Greek families such as the Phocas (Calergis) and Armenis (d'Armer) families were influential in both the Greek and Venetian communities. These family branches were ethnically Greek and culturally Venetian.

To suggest a linear hypothesis would be naive I think. It is worth emphasizing the cultural and militaristic package that remained almost intact from the age of Alexander to the Angevin rulers of Naples, Sicily and Greece.

agree with venetian part , the genoese holdings in greece and the aegean have more U152 than the venetians

Pi gman
19-02-13, 21:21
The reason I am speculating about the Greek part is this result from a Genebase population study study comparison to my markers:


The Y-DNA of Curtis Pigman (http://www.genebase.com/in/indiSummary.php?niId=12322872&view=ydna) was compared to a dataset of 2 populations in 1 journal using 8 Y-DNA STR markers. The closest matches in a set of 2 populations are listed in the table below:


http://indigenousdna.genebase.com/image/ico_pdf.gif (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmid/21401952/?tool=pubmed) Smyma, Greece (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmid/21401952/?tool=pubmed)
http://indigenousdna.genebase.com/image/spacer.gif
RMI: 294.05


http://indigenousdna.genebase.com/image/ico_pdf.gif (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmid/21401952/?tool=pubmed) Phocaea, Greece (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmid/21401952/?tool=pubmed)
http://indigenousdna.genebase.com/image/spacer.gif
RMI: 205.95



Curtis Pigman's Y-DNA STR markers (http://indigenousdna.genebase.com/dnaView.php?niId=12322872&type=y) were compared to the following 2 populations:


Population
Continent
Category
Size (N)


Smyma, Greece
Europe
Indigenous
45


Phocaea, Greece
Europe
Indigenous
26


Appendix 4: Raw Comparison Results
The results of this comparison are based on the following raw analysis data:
Matches at a Genetic Distance of 0:


Population Set
# Matches
Population Size
Match %


Phocaea, Greece
1
26
3.85%


Matches at a Genetic Distance of 1:


Population Set
# Matches
Population Size
Match %


Smyma, Greece
1
45
2.22%


Matches at a Genetic Distance of 2:


Population Set
# Matches
Population Size
Match %


Smyma, Greece
5
45
11.11%


Matches at a Genetic Distance of 3:


Population Set
# Matches
Population Size
Match %


Smyma, Greece
7
45
15.56%


Phocaea, Greece
3
26
11.54%


Matches at a Genetic Distance of 4:


Population Set
# Matches
Population Size
Match %


Phocaea, Greece
4
26
15.38%


Smyma, Greece





4
45
8.89%



Although not ideal because they did not compare SNPs, the people in these studies were selected because they could prove (to the period before 1920) they were in fact from Greek ancestry.

The population study is from:
The coming of the Greeks to Provence and Corsica: Y-chromosome models of archaic Greek colonization of the western Mediterranean


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3068964/?tool=pubmed (http://http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3068964/?tool=pubmed)

Ionian Greek were previously in Crete.

These two Greece cities in Greek Asia Minor are said to have been founded by Ionian Greeks from the Peloponnese and after a time became allies of the Romans. Smyrna and Phocean Nobles were also encouraged (because of overpopulation?) to relocate to Marseilles, France and start new cities.

What are your thoughts?

Regards,
Curtis Pigman(French - Pigmon / Greek - Pygmon)

Dorianfinder
19-02-13, 23:38
The reason I am speculating about the Greek part is this result from a Genebase population study study comparison to my markers:


The Y-DNA of Curtis Pigman (http://www.genebase.com/in/indiSummary.php?niId=12322872&view=ydna) was compared to a dataset of 2 populations in 1 journal using 8 Y-DNA STR markers. The closest matches in a set of 2 populations are listed in the table below:


http://indigenousdna.genebase.com/image/ico_pdf.gif (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmid/21401952/?tool=pubmed) Smyma, Greece (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmid/21401952/?tool=pubmed)
http://indigenousdna.genebase.com/image/spacer.gif
RMI: 294.05


http://indigenousdna.genebase.com/image/ico_pdf.gif (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmid/21401952/?tool=pubmed) Phocaea, Greece (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmid/21401952/?tool=pubmed)
http://indigenousdna.genebase.com/image/spacer.gif
RMI: 205.95



Curtis Pigman's Y-DNA STR markers (http://indigenousdna.genebase.com/dnaView.php?niId=12322872&type=y) were compared to the following 2 populations:


Population
Continent
Category
Size (N)


Smyma, Greece
Europe
Indigenous
45


Phocaea, Greece
Europe
Indigenous
26


Appendix 4: Raw Comparison Results
The results of this comparison are based on the following raw analysis data:
Matches at a Genetic Distance of 0:


Population Set
# Matches
Population Size
Match %


Phocaea, Greece
1
26
3.85%


Matches at a Genetic Distance of 1:


Population Set
# Matches
Population Size
Match %


Smyma, Greece
1
45
2.22%


Matches at a Genetic Distance of 2:


Population Set
# Matches
Population Size
Match %


Smyma, Greece
5
45
11.11%


Matches at a Genetic Distance of 3:


Population Set
# Matches
Population Size
Match %


Smyma, Greece
7
45
15.56%


Phocaea, Greece
3
26
11.54%


Matches at a Genetic Distance of 4:


Population Set
# Matches
Population Size
Match %


Phocaea, Greece
4
26
15.38%


Smyma, Greece




4
45
8.89%



Although not ideal because they did not compare SNPs, the people in these studies were selected because they could prove (to the period before 1920) they were in fact from Greek ancestry.

The population study is from:
The coming of the Greeks to Provence and Corsica: Y-chromosome models of archaic Greek colonization of the western Mediterranean


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3068964/?tool=pubmed (http://http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3068964/?tool=pubmed)

Ionian Greek were previously in Crete.

These two Greece cities in Greek Asia Minor are said to have been founded by Ionian Greeks from the Peloponnese and after a time became allies of the Romans. Smyrna and Phocean Nobles were also encouraged (because of overpopulation?) to relocate to Marseilles, France and start new cities.

What are your thoughts?

Regards,
Curtis Pigman(French - Pigmon / Greek - Pygmon)

Generally I would agree with the notion that some U152 may have gone to Marseilles from Greek Doric settlements that had much in common with their Celtic brethren in ancient Gaul. I would like to see more Greek U152 individuals get tested at a higher resolution (subclade). The theory and hypothesis will come in handy as soon as the DNA results support these ideas, until then we can only wait for more Greeks to get ydna tested.

Pi gman
20-02-13, 00:19
Generally I would agree with the notion that some U152 may have gone to Marseilles from Greek Doric settlements that had much in common with their Celtic brethren in ancient Gaul. I would like to see more Greek U152 individuals get tested at a higher resolution (subclade). The theory and hypothesis will come in handy as soon as the DNA results support these ideas, until then we can only wait for more Greeks to get ydna tested.

I agree that we need to get the SNPs from these Greek samples. That would firm up this quote from Wikipedia and History of the Peloponnesian War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Peloponnesian_War) by Thucydides (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thucydides) If we only had proof it would explain a lot about French U152/L2:

Marseille has been called the oldest city in France, as it was founded in 600 BC by Greeks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greeks) from Phocaea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phocaea) as a trading port under the name Μασσαλία (Massalia; see also List of traditional Greek place names (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Greek_place_names)). The connection between Μασσαλία and the Phoceans is mentioned in Book I, 13 of the History of the Peloponnesian War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Peloponnesian_War) by Thucydides (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thucydides).[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marseille#cite_note-11) The precise circumstances and date of founding remain obscure, but nevertheless a legend survives. Protis, while exploring for a new trading outpost or emporion for Phocaea, discovered the Mediterranean cove (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cove) of the Lacydon, fed by a freshwater stream and protected by two rocky promontories.[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marseille#cite_note-marseille1913-12) Protis was invited inland to a banquet held by the chief of the local Ligurian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ligures) tribe for suitors seeking the hand of his daughter Gyptis in marriage. At the end of the banquet, Gyptis presented the ceremonial cup of wine to Protis, indicating her unequivocal choice. Following their marriage, they moved to the hill just to the north of the Lacydon; and from this settlement grew Massalia.[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marseille#cite_note-marseille1913-12)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/92/Marseille_hafen.jpg/170px-Marseille_hafen.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Marseille_hafen.jpg) http://bits.wikimedia.org/static-1.21wmf9/skins/common/images/magnify-clip.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Marseille_hafen.jpg)
View from the Vieux-Port (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Port_of_Marseille) towards Notre-Dame-de-la-Garde (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notre-Dame_de_la_Garde)


Massalia was one of the first Greek ports in Western Europe,[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marseille#cite_note-13) growing to a population of over 1000. It was the first settlement given city status (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polis) in France. Facing an opposing alliance of the Etruscans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etruscan_civilization), Carthage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carthage) and the Celts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celts), the Greek colony (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonies_in_antiquity) allied itself with the expanding Roman Republic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Republic) for protection. This protectionist association brought aid in the event of future attacks, and perhaps equally important, it also brought the people of Massalia into the complex Roman market. The city thrived by acting as a link between inland Gaul (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaul), hungry for Roman goods and wine (which Massalia was steadily exporting by 500 BC)

Curtis Pigman (French - Pigmon / Greek - Pygmon)

Nobody1
13-03-13, 04:30
To me R1b - U152 is Ligurian (ancient Ligures / Pre-Indo European)
The theory about Phocaens bringing it to Marseille (and Marseille even being Celtic) is nonsense.
Marseille was a Greek colony in Ligurian territory, infact all of the Rhone Valley was Ligurian or just Celto-Ligurian at best.

Henry Malden - History of Rome (1830)
"Pliny held the Sallyi, Deceates, and Oxybii, tribes upon the coast, to be Ligurians. Strabo is more cautious; and informs us that later writers called the Salyes, who extended along the coast a little further than Massalia (Marseilles), Celto-Ligyes (that is, Gallo-Ligurians), from the intermixture of the Gaulish population; but that the earlier Greeks called them Ligyes, and the country which the Massaliots occupied, Ligystic or Ligurian; and assigned to them [Ligurians]"
"This agrees with the account of Scylax, who makes the Rhone the limit of the pure Ligurians."

As for Phocaea,
wasnt Phocaea a Genoese colony (for ~100 years) in the middle ages, and couldnt it therefor be that it was the Genoese and Lombards [North Italians (largely employed as mercenaries by the Genoese)] that brought the R1b-U152 to Phocaea.

Pi gman
26-04-13, 23:32
To me R1b - U152 is Ligurian (ancient Ligures / Pre-Indo European)
The theory about Phocaens bringing it to Marseille (and Marseille even being Celtic) is nonsense.
Marseille was a Greek colony in Ligurian territory, infact all of the Rhone Valley was Ligurian or just Celto-Ligurian at best.

Henry Malden - History of Rome (1830)
"Pliny held the Sallyi, Deceates, and Oxybii, tribes upon the coast, to be Ligurians. Strabo is more cautious; and informs us that later writers called the Salyes, who extended along the coast a little further than Massalia (Marseilles), Celto-Ligyes (that is, Gallo-Ligurians), from the intermixture of the Gaulish population; but that the earlier Greeks called them Ligyes, and the country which the Massaliots occupied, Ligystic or Ligurian; and assigned to them [Ligurians]"
"This agrees with the account of Scylax, who makes the Rhone the limit of the pure Ligurians."

As for Phocaea,
wasnt Phocaea a Genoese colony (for ~100 years) in the middle ages, and couldnt it therefor be that it was the Genoese and Lombards [North Italians (largely employed as mercenaries by the Genoese)] that brought the R1b-U152 to Phocaea.

I think this quote from Wikipedia and Pliny should answer both of your questions:


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

Phocaea, or Phokaia, (Greek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_language): Φώκαια) (modern-day Foça (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fo%C3%A7a) in Turkey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkey)) was an ancient Ionian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionia) Greek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greece) city on the western coast of Anatolia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatolia). Greek colonists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonies_in_antiquity) from Phocaea founded the colony of Massalia[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phocaea#cite_note-1) (modern day Marseille (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marseille), in France (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France)) in 600 BC, Emporion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emporion) (modern day Empúries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emp%C3%BAries), in Catalonia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalonia), Spain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spain)) in 575 BC and Elea (modern day Velia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velia), in Campania (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campania), Italy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italy)) in 540 BC.

or this one:

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

"Marseille has been called the oldest city in France, as it was founded in 600 BC by Greeks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greeks) from Phocaea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phocaea) as a trading port under the name Μασσαλία (Massalia; see also List of traditional Greek place names (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Greek_place_names)). The connection between Μασσαλία and the Phoceans is mentioned in Book I, 13 of the History of the Peloponnesian War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Peloponnesian_War) by Thucydides (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thucydides).[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marseille#cite_note-11) The precise circumstances and date of founding remain obscure, but nevertheless a legend survives. Protis, while exploring for a new trading outpost or emporion for Phocaea, discovered the Mediterranean cove (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cove) of the Lacydon, fed by a freshwater stream and protected by two rocky promontories.[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marseille#cite_note-marseille1913-12) Protis was invited inland to a banquet held by the chief of the local Ligurian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ligures) tribe for suitors seeking the hand of his daughter Gyptis in marriage. At the end of the banquet, Gyptis presented the ceremonial cup of wine to Protis, indicating her unequivocal choice. Following their marriage, they moved to the hill just to the north of the Lacydon; and from this settlement grew Massalia.[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marseille#cite_note-marseille1913-12)"

Nobody1
27-04-13, 01:01
I think this quote from Wikipedia and Pliny should answer both of your questions

Really you think? seems more like ignoring my question (only had one).
Didnt really read alot about the Genoese Republic in Phokaia in your wikipedia links. maybe i missed it maybe i didnt.

Therefor i still think its poss. that R1b S28 (U152) spread to Phokaia with the Genoese and Lombards having the times of their lives when Phokaia was a Genoese colony in the middle ages.

as for Marseille

Henry Malden - History of Rome (1830)
"Pliny held the Sallyi, Deceates, and Oxybii, tribes upon the coast, to be Ligurians. Strabo is more cautious; and informs us that later writers called the Salyes, who extended along the coast a little further than Massalia (Marseilles), Celto-Ligyes (that is, Gallo-Ligurians), from the intermixture of the Gaulish population; but that the earlier Greeks called them Ligyes, and the country which the Massaliots occupied, Ligystic or Ligurian; and assigned to them [Ligurians]"
"This agrees with the account of Scylax, who makes the Rhone the limit of the pure Ligurians."

So its pretty established that Marseille (Massilia) was a Greek Colony in Ligurian territory (also your wiki link confirms that); But what about it?

Pi gman
27-04-13, 16:01
Really you think? seems more like ignoring my question (only had one).
Didnt really read alot about the Genoese Republic in Phokaia in your wikipedia links. maybe i missed it maybe i didnt.

Therefor i still think its poss. that R1b S28 (U152) spread to Phokaia with the Genoese and Lombards having the times of their lives when Phokaia was a Genoese colony in the middle ages.

as for Marseille

Henry Malden - History of Rome (1830)
"Pliny held the Sallyi, Deceates, and Oxybii, tribes upon the coast, to be Ligurians. Strabo is more cautious; and informs us that later writers called the Salyes, who extended along the coast a little further than Massalia (Marseilles), Celto-Ligyes (that is, Gallo-Ligurians), from the intermixture of the Gaulish population; but that the earlier Greeks called them Ligyes, and the country which the Massaliots occupied, Ligystic or Ligurian; and assigned to them [Ligurians]"
"This agrees with the account of Scylax, who makes the Rhone the limit of the pure Ligurians."

So its pretty established that Marseille (Massilia) was a Greek Colony in Ligurian territory (also your wiki link confirms that); But what about it?

There are actually two questions in your sentence and without question marks:

"As for Phocaea,
wasnt Phocaea a Genoese colony (for ~100 years) in the middle ages, and couldnt it therefor be that it was the Genoese and Lombards [North Italians (largely employed as mercenaries by the Genoese)] that brought the R1b-U152 to Phocaea."

I see what you are saying about a possible back migration of U-152 into Smyrna and Phocaea. Are you also saying that the Roy J. King, etc study is wrong in their results, conclusions, and methods of study in regards to the R1b in Marsailles?:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3068964/?tool=pubmed
The coming of the Greeks to Provence and Corsica: Y-chromosome models of archaic Greek colonization of the western Mediterranean

"On the other hand, E-V13 appears to have originated in Greece or the southern Balkans [13 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3068964/?tool=pubmed#B13),14 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3068964/?tool=pubmed#B14)] and then spread to Sicily at high frequencies with the Greek colonization of the island. E-V13 is also found at low frequencies on the Anatolian mainland [13 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3068964/?tool=pubmed#B13)] and thus may be useful in teasing apart the relative contributions of Greek colonization (E-V13) from Early Neolithic colonization (J2) to Western Europe. In this report, a sampling of individuals whose ancestry traces to the Ionian Greek city of Phokaia will be compared through Y-chromosome genotyping to samples from the Aeolian/Ionian city of Smyrna and a set of samples from Provence. These data will reveal genetic patterning characteristic of 1) the Ionian foundation of Phokaia versus the Aeolian/Ionian foundation of Smyrna. 2) the relative Y chromosome contributions of Phokaian Greeks and local Anatolian/Neolithic and/or central Anatolian populations in these two Asia Minor Greek city-states and 3) the contribution of Greek and/or Neolithic Y-chromosomes to the demographic pattern of Provence."

Nobody1
27-04-13, 19:24
There are actually two questions in your sentence and without question marks:

"As for Phocaea,
wasnt Phocaea a Genoese colony (for ~100 years) in the middle ages, and couldnt it therefor be that it was the Genoese and Lombards [North Italians (largely employed as mercenaries by the Genoese)] that brought the R1b-U152 to Phocaea."

Na it was really just one question regarding the Republic of Genoa. And i dont think i ever argued (used the word) Back Migration of U152. When linking Genoa to Phocaea.


Are you also saying that the Roy J. King, etc study is wrong in their results, conclusions, and methods of study in regards to the R1b in Marsailles?:

Definitely No. Im not saying this at all. I even consider King et al 2011 one of the most important and insightful studies of the last few years. Great study.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3068964/?tool=pubmed

But have you actually read it?
I can understand what confuses you:

The dominant haplogroups in both Phokaia and Smyrna are E-V13 (19.4% and 12.1%) and R1b-M269 (22.6% and 27.8%) respectfully.

Those are the modern-day results; and the study (Roy J King) makes it clear that it considers E-V13 to be the Greek marker and not R1b-M269, which the study (Roy J King) considers a Neolithic marker.

the data showed a 12% Greek component and an 18% Neolithic component to eastern Provence, while attesting a 19% Greek component and a 0% Neolithic component to western Provence. This does not exclude other sources of early Neolithic demographic episodes to Provence such as the radiation of R1b-269 sub lineages [15].

So Neolithic and Greek are put at contrast to each other.

Estimates of colonial Greek vs. indigenous Celto-Ligurian demography predict a maximum of a 10% Greek contribution, suggesting a Greek male elite-dominant input into the Iron Age Provence population.

So the study (Roy J King) is missing the clear passage where it links R1b-S28 (or M269 in total) with the Greeks and its distribution in the Provence with the Greek Colonizers, in fact the study (Roy J King) is writing the complete opposite; that R1b-M269 lineages in Provence are Celto-Ligurian and from a Neolithic source.

Brings us back to the original question (singular), what influence did the Genoese and Lombards (28-32% R1b-S28 Busby et al 2011 / descendants of the ancient Umbro-Ligurians in Po Valley) had in Phocaea in the middle ages.
And im not talking about (also now based on King et al 2011) a migration back, im talking about a first emergence during the middle ages and many marry medieval feasts concerning Lombards, Genoese and Greek women.

zanipolo
27-04-13, 20:07
Na it was really just one question regarding the Republic of Genoa. And i dont think i ever argued (used the word) Back Migration of U152. When linking Genoa to Phocaea.



Definitely No. Im not saying this at all. I even consider King et al 2011 one of the most important and insightful studies of the last few years. Great study.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3068964/?tool=pubmed

But have you actually read it?
I can understand what confuses you:

The dominant haplogroups in both Phokaia and Smyrna are E-V13 (19.4% and 12.1%) and R1b-M269 (22.6% and 27.8%) respectfully.

Those are the modern-day results; and the study (Roy J King) makes it clear that it considers E-V13 to be the Greek marker and not R1b-M269, which the study (Roy J King) considers a Neolithic marker.

the data showed a 12% Greek component and an 18% Neolithic component to eastern Provence, while attesting a 19% Greek component and a 0% Neolithic component to western Provence. This does not exclude other sources of early Neolithic demographic episodes to Provence such as the radiation of R1b-269 sub lineages [15].

So Neolithic and Greek are put at contrast to each other.

Estimates of colonial Greek vs. indigenous Celto-Ligurian demography predict a maximum of a 10% Greek contribution, suggesting a Greek male elite-dominant input into the Iron Age Provence population.

So the study (Roy J King) is missing the clear passage where it links R1b-S28 (or M269 in total) with the Greeks and its distribution in the Provence with the Greek Colonizers, in fact the study (Roy J King) is writing the complete opposite; that R1b-M269 lineages in Provence are Celto-Ligurian and from a Neolithic source.

Brings us back to the original question (singular), what influence did the Genoese and Lombards (28-32% R1b-S28 Busby et al 2011 / descendants of the ancient Umbro-Ligurians in Po Valley) had in Phocaea in the middle ages.
And im not talking about (also now based on King et al 2011) a migration back, im talking about a first emergence during the middle ages and many marry medieval feasts concerning Lombards, Genoese and Greek women.


map below is by Italian Historians on the lands of the ligures - approx 1800BC

http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/9575/liguri.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/153/liguri.jpg/)


Età NEO-ENEOLITICA o prima età del RAME (Tra il 3.000 e 1.800 a.C.)
I LIGURI-IBERI sono stanziati stabilmente anche nella pianura padana (ritrovamento dei primi oggetti in Rame), diffondendo la loro cultura e organizzazione sociale.

Per quanto riguarda la lingua parlata da queste popolazioni, molti storici asseriscono che fosse il "Leponzio", originario delle genti stanziate vicino alle Alpi (da cui il nome di Alpi Lepontine), che si mischierà con il "Gallico" ed il "Celtico-Ispano" formando il "Proto-Celtico", idiomi derivanti probabilmente da una unica radice fonica già preesistente alcuni secoli prima dell'arrivo delle popolazioni Etrusche e centro-italiche.
Non dobbiamo poi dimenticarci del sopraggiungere di nuove genti provenienti da località più distanti, come l'Asia Minore o il Nord Africa, verso questi territori, che appunto dopo fine della glaciazione, diventavano più temperati e perciò più popolabili.

(http://imageshack.us)

Pi gman
27-04-13, 21:04
Yes, I have read the study and I have been in contact with Roy King electronically. Thanks for your input on his study. The reason I am interested in it is this comparison I have found on Genebase:

Curtis Pigman's Y-DNA STR markers (http://indigenousdna.genebase.com/dnaView.php?niId=12322872&type=y) were compared to the following 2 populations:


Population
Continent
Category
Size (N)


Smyrna, Greece
Europe
Indigenous
45


Phocaea, Greece
Europe
Indigenous
26


Appendix 4: Raw Comparison Results
The results of this comparison are based on the following raw analysis data:
Matches at a Genetic Distance of 0:


Population Set
# Matches
Population Size
Match %


Smyrna, Greece
3
45
6.67%


Matches at a Genetic Distance of 1:


Population Set
# Matches
Population Size
Match %


Smyrna, Greece
11
45
24.44%


Phocaea, Greece
4
26
15.38%


Matches at a Genetic Distance of 2:


Population Set
# Matches
Population Size
Match %


Phocaea, Greece
3
26
11.54%


Smyrna, Greece
1
45
2.22%


Matches at a Genetic Distance of 3:


Population Set
# Matches
Population Size
Match %


Smyrna, Greece
2
45
4.44%


Phocaea, Greece
1
26
3.85%


Matches at a Genetic Distance of 4:


Population Set
# Matches
Population Size
Match %


Smyrna, Greece
3
45
6.67%


Phocaea, Greece
1
26
3.85%




I know that is not ideal as they only have 7 markers with which I can compare, however, it is very interesting!

As far as your question:

"Brings us back to the original question (singular), what influence did the Genoese and Lombards (28-32% R1b-S28 Busby et al 2011 / descendants of the ancient Umbro-Ligurians in Po Valley) had in Phocaea in the middle ages."

I wish I could answer that question for you but I am afraid I do not know the answer. Perhaps you could request a grant as Roy King did and do a study for a peer review paper of your own.

Regards,
Curtis Pigman/Pigmon (French - Pigmon and Greek Πυγμή - Pygmon)

adamo
28-04-13, 09:14
As far as I'm concerned, this is a very controversial topic. Many people claim that the U-152 subclade is characteristically "Italic", having originated among these ancient "Ligures" of northern Italy and subsequently spread from there. To me, all the evidence supporting this theory and the theory itself are nonsense. What would explain the fact that, on the other side of the alps, in Switzerland the "Sankt Gallen" nation or sanctuary of the Gauls, 1 out of 2 men on a national level are R1b R-S28? An area inhabited by the Gaulish Helvetii tribes and other such Celtic people's. what explains the 20% R-S28 across France with frequencies between 15-20% but a 18-20% national average? Migration from north Italy into Switzerland/France? Doubt it, seems the other way around to me, as historical source after historical source suggests. How many tribes do we know of, Gaul tribes that migrated into Italy that we know their exact names? Senones, Lingones, Cenomani, carni/carnutes, Bellovesus and his bituriges Cubi, the Aedui AND Arverni along with their Ambarri subordinates, Gallia Cisalpina region, the golasecca....GAULS. The Insubres of the Lombardy region whom where named after a canton/district of their long-forgotten ancestors the Aedui Gauls.....I can state so much evidence for franco-Swiss migrations to Italy but really, how much more do you need before putting this "Ligures" theory to rest? Senones of north-east France; senones of Marche, Italy. Lingones of north-east France; Lingones of Emilia-Romagna. They where celts, Marne/Loire/Moselle river celts. La tene Gauls. All of them. Every single last one of them and their u152 brothers.

adamo
28-04-13, 09:22
To me, R-S28 originated somewhere either in north-eastern France directly just under the Belgian border or somewhere hugging extreme east France from under Belgium to almost right in the part of eastern france bordering Switzerland, but no more to the south or north or west than those regions. Or maybe within central Switzerland itself.

Pi gman
28-04-13, 21:26
Being a little dubious about the Genoese origins I set out to come up with a better comparison than my 7 marker perfect match with Phocaea. I found the tables on Roy King's study of the 37 markers from Phocaea and Smyrna they used in their study. Doing this by hand is a bit tedious because I had to rearrange the DYS assignments to his order and also because I have a 44 marker test with Genebase and a 67 marker test with FTDNA I had to use both to match up with the Sorenson study they used. The required conversions were also done with some of the allells.

There were 36 markers I could match and the result was a GD of 9. At 3 generations per GD 27 x 25 years per generation comes to 675 years ago. 2013 - 675 = 1338. I looked up Phocaea around 1338(well close for my rough calculations) and found that it was under the control of:

Benedetto I Zaccaria (c. 1235 – 1307) was an Italian admiral of the Republic of Genoa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Genoa). He was the Lord of Phocaea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phocaea) (from 1288) and first Lord of Chios (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_of_Chios) (from 1304), and the founder of Zaccaria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaccaria) fortunes in Byzantine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Empire) and Latin Greece (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_Empire). He was, at different stages in his life, a diplomat, adventurer, mercenary, and statesman.

Already by then a successful merchant, Benedetto first appeared as a Genoese ambassador to the Byzantine court in 1264. This was in response to Michael VIII's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_VIII_Palaeologus) alliance with the Republic of Venice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Venice).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benedetto_Zaccaria#cite_note-1) After eleven years of negotiations which resulted in a renewed accord between the Empire and Genoa, Benedetto first appeared in Constantinople (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantinople) with his brother Manuele (Manel) in 1275, at imperial invitation. It was then that he was first appointed administrator of the mines of Phocaea. He built a plantation there, from which he traded with a number of Mediterranean (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediterranean) and Asian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asia) cities, accumulating considerable wealth. In 1282, still in the emperor's service, he acted as an ambassador to Peter III of Aragon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_III_of_Aragon), counselling him to continue the war with Angevins over Sicily (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Sicilian_Vespers).
Benedetto returned to Genoa in 1284 and was made an admiral. He was the principal commander of the Genoese fleet which defeated Pisa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Pisa) at the Battle of Meloria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Meloria_%281284%29). He commanded a fleet of twenty galleys (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galley), separate from the main Genoese fleet and initially hidden from sight. His surprise attack led to a decisive Genoese victory and the permanent decline of Pisa's military and mercantile power.
He participated alongside the Castilians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Castile) under Sancho IV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sancho_IV_of_Castile) in a victorious campaign against Morocco (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morocco). At about the same time, he served Philip IV of France (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_IV_of_France) as an admiral, blocking the English (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_England) and Flemish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/County_of_Flanders) ports.
Before the Ottoman Turks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Turks) and the Venetians, the Byzantine emperor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_emperor) Andronicus II Palaeologus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andronicus_II_Palaeologus) appealed for his aid. In 1296, the Venetian admiral Ruggero Morosini (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ruggero_Morosini&action=edit&redlink=1) razed Phocaea.
In 1302, Zaccaria was named admiral by Philip of France, in which capacity he conquered the island of Chios (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chios) (1304), which had thitherto been in the hands of Moslem corsairs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_corsairs). At first, he gave the government of the isle over to his nephew Tedisio. In 1304, he also occupied Samos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samos_Island) and Cos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kos), which were almost completely depopulated, and the emperor conceded him sovereignty over those islands and Chios for two years, under Byzantine suzerainty. It is from this date that Benedetto is accounted Lord of Chios and begins his career as a statesman and ruler. In 1306, Tedisio occupied Thasos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thasos), then a refuge of Greek pirates.


So very well could be Genoese!

brianco
29-04-13, 16:58
I am a British U152* and have just ordered the Gen0.2 chip test.

https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/about/

Be interesting to see if I have PF4363+, like Claxon and Parker (British and former U152*).

adamo
29-04-13, 17:23
Southern England on the "English channel coast" has about 15-20% R1b u152, it arrived there surely from the u152 loaded continental belgic tribes that moved there, you may be an ancient relic of continental franco-Swiss blood to England.

brianco
03-05-13, 16:32
I could well be :smile:

I just hope more Europeans order the Geno.2 chip test. For any interested European parties the test including shipping would cost €167.48, at current exchange rates!


I ordered mine last Saturday it came yesterday swabbed and now on it's way to Texas!!





Southern England on the "English channel coast" has about 15-20% R1b u152, it arrived there surely from the u152 loaded continental belgic tribes that moved there, you may be an ancient relic of continental franco-Swiss blood to England.

Jackson
04-05-13, 02:50
You could visualize a Frankish (Southwest Germanic) a Bohemian (Southeast Germanic) a Roman (Italic) and a Gallic component. Each community was influenced by its particular environment helping it to develop separately.:wary2:

This is an interesting point that works in regard to south-east Britain. For example there is some thought (which i seriously consider credible) that the 'Jutes' were one and the same as Frankish tribes from the Rhine area (lower Rhine i believe), as R1b-U152 is somewhat high in these areas it is not at odds at that, and also fits in better with Belgic Gaulish settlement in south-east Britain at an earlier date and later Frankish connections between far south-east England (Kent in particular) and Frankish areas.

ellamosa
25-11-20, 12:19
Hello, im R1b L2.
I would like to know a deeper subclade. Can any of you suggest how to find that out?
My family is one of the oldest in Trasmiera, Cantabria. There is a legend that we came from the area of “Borgoña”. I think even before the Romans invaded Cantabria.
Thank you!