PDA

View Full Version : Identifying the Roman subclades of J2a1



Maciamo
29-12-16, 15:48
In 2013 I explained in my Genetic history of the Italians (http://www.eupedia.com/genetics/italian_dna.shtml) that the ancient Italic tribes, including the Latins/Romans would have belonged primarily to R1b-U152 (especially Z56). I mentioned that the original Latins of the Roman Republic would also have carried G2a-L140 (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_G2a_Y-DNA.shtml#Roman) (specifically the L13, L1264 and Z1816 subclades) as well as some yet unidentified J2a subclades. I have just updated the phylogenetic tree of Y-haplogroup J2 (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_J2_Y-DNA.shtml#subclades) and I came across a branch that appeared to be the ideal candidate for the Italic J2a1. That branch is Z435, immediately downstream of L70.

All L70 carriers today descend from a single patrilineal ancestor who lived about 5,000 years ago, when the Proto-Indo-Europeans started invading Central Europe from the Pontic Steppe. Indeed, a lot of J2a1-L70 are now found in Northeast Europe and Central Asia, which suggests an Indo-European dispersal from the steppes.

Z435 has a TMRCA of only 3,100 years, which corresponds roughly to the timing of the invasion of Italian peninsula by Italic tribes from the Alps. Z435 has numerous subclades of its own, and most have been identified in central Italy. The PF5456 subclade is barely 2500 years old, and would have emerged and propagated after the founding of Rome. Outside Italy, it is now found in such varied places as Spain, France, England, Belgium, southern Germany, Austria, Bulgaria or Tunisia, all regions colonised by the Romans. It would be very hard to explain how this 2500 year-old clade spread so far and wide around Europe if it weren't for the Romans.

Z2177, another subclade of Z435, is a bit under 3,000 years old and, although rare, it is found today in places like Tuscany, Sardinia and Spain, which also suggests a Roman connection.


Here is the relevant section of the J2a1-L26 tree:

http://cache.eupedia.com/images/content/J2-PF5160-tree.png

bicicleur
29-12-16, 18:14
wikipedia links 2 possible cultures to the Italic people, both linked with Bell Beakers :

ca 3.5 ka

In the mid-2nd millennium BC, the Terramare culture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terramare_culture)[11] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italic_peoples#cite_note-Pearce1998-11) developed in the Po Valley. The Terramare culture takes its name from the black earth (terra marna) residue of settlement mounds, which have long served the fertilizing needs of local farmers. They were still hunters, but had domesticated animals; they were fairly skillful metallurgists, casting bronze in moulds of stone and clay, and they were also agriculturists, cultivating beans (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beans), the vine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vine), wheat (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheat) and flax (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flax). The Latino-Faliscan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latino-Faliscan_languages) people have been associated with this culture, especially by the archaeologist Luigi Pigorini (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luigi_Pigorini).

ca 3 ka

From the late 2nd millennium to the early 1st millennium BC, the Late Bronze Age Proto-Villanovan culture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Villanovan_culture), related to the Central European Urnfield culture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urnfield_culture), dominated the peninsula and replaced the preceding Apennine culture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apennine_culture). The Proto-Villanovans practiced cremation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cremation) and buried the ashes of their dead in pottery urns of a distinctive double-cone shape. Generally speaking, Proto-Villanovan settlements have been found in almost the whole Italian peninsula from Veneto to eastern Sicily, although they were most numerous in the northern-central part of Italy. The most important settlements excavated are those of Frattesina in Veneto (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veneto) region, Bismantova (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pietra_di_Bismantova) in Emilia-Romagna (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emilia-Romagna) and near the Monti della Tolfa (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monti_della_Tolfa), north of Rome (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rome). The Osco-Umbrians (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osco-Umbrian_languages), the Veneti (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adriatic_Veneti), and possibly the Latino-Faliscans too, have been associated with this culture.


IMO the most probable origin would be the Carpathian Basin where local tribes admixed with new arivals from the Pontic steppe

Sile
29-12-16, 20:02
wikipedia links 2 possible cultures to the Italic people, both linked with Bell Beakers :

ca 3.5 ka

In the mid-2nd millennium BC, the Terramare culture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terramare_culture)[11] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italic_peoples#cite_note-Pearce1998-11) developed in the Po Valley. The Terramare culture takes its name from the black earth (terra marna) residue of settlement mounds, which have long served the fertilizing needs of local farmers. They were still hunters, but had domesticated animals; they were fairly skillful metallurgists, casting bronze in moulds of stone and clay, and they were also agriculturists, cultivating beans (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beans), the vine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vine), wheat (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheat) and flax (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flax). The Latino-Faliscan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latino-Faliscan_languages) people have been associated with this culture, especially by the archaeologist Luigi Pigorini (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luigi_Pigorini).

ca 3 ka

From the late 2nd millennium to the early 1st millennium BC, the Late Bronze Age Proto-Villanovan culture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Villanovan_culture), related to the Central European Urnfield culture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urnfield_culture), dominated the peninsula and replaced the preceding Apennine culture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apennine_culture). The Proto-Villanovans practiced cremation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cremation) and buried the ashes of their dead in pottery urns of a distinctive double-cone shape. Generally speaking, Proto-Villanovan settlements have been found in almost the whole Italian peninsula from Veneto to eastern Sicily, although they were most numerous in the northern-central part of Italy. The most important settlements excavated are those of Frattesina in Veneto (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veneto) region, Bismantova (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pietra_di_Bismantova) in Emilia-Romagna (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emilia-Romagna) and near the Monti della Tolfa (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monti_della_Tolfa), north of Rome (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rome). The Osco-Umbrians (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osco-Umbrian_languages), the Veneti (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adriatic_Veneti), and possibly the Latino-Faliscans too, have been associated with this culture.


IMO the most probable origin would be the Carpathian Basin where local tribes admixed with new arivals from the Pontic steppe


How old is this documentation ?............the latest I know is that Villanova culture furthest Northern boundary was in the vicinity of modern Bologna

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Villanovan_culture
data updated September 2016

bicicleur
29-12-16, 21:50
How old is this documentation ?............the latest I know is that Villanova culture furthest Northern boundary was in the vicinity of modern Bologna

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Villanovan_culture
data updated September 2016

Proto-Villanovan spread all over Italy, but followed by Villanovan properly only in northern and central Italy.

Sile
29-12-16, 22:59
Proto-Villanovan spread all over Italy, but followed by Villanovan properly only in northern and central Italy.

Proto-Villanovan pffh a fictitious name to say - the coming of the italic people into Italy.........there are many cultures in Italy which where IE peoples before the proto-Villanovan...........this "proto" is an excuse because the scholars where too lazy to see that:


Remedello II - [2900 - 2500 BC] - Copper Age - North Italy (Alps/Po Valley)
first expansion of Indo-Europeans; mixed Civilization;

Terremare - [1500 - 1100 BC] - Bronze Age - North Italy (Po Valley)
first substantial wave of Indo-Europeans (Umbrians) via Swiss lake-dwellings

Villanova I - [1200 - 900 BC] - Bronze Age - North Italy (Po Valley)
part of Urnfield Culture Complex; Umbrian - Pelasgian (Tyrsenoi) Hybrid;


Villanova II - [900 - 700 BC] - Iron Age - North & Central Italy (Po Valley/Appenines/Tuscany)
emergence of Etruscan Civilization (Tyrsenoi Dominant);
extensive contacts to Greek Colonies (Magna Graecia) Alphabet/Mythology/Pottery


There are more I can give you

Maciamo
30-12-16, 09:12
I doubt that Terramare had anything to do with Italic people. I have always associated the Italics with the Villanovan culture.

However it is not impossible that some Proto-Italo-Celts reached the Po valley by 1700 BCE and created a hybrid culture by mixing with the indigenous populations, a bit like a piecemeal colonisation of the Iberian peninsula by R1b tribes between 1800 and 1200 BCE. In both cases R1b people would have been a small minority, possibly a ruling class that adopted the culture and language of the conquered populations. Over the centuries they would have progressively changed the Y-chromosomal landscape of the conquered regions, although with a minimal autosomal impact. That's how the Basque and Iberian tribes would have acquired R1b lineages without becoming Indo-European speakers.

The same could have happened in northern Italy during the Terramare period. That would explain why R1b is considerably higher in northern Italy, especially in the Po valley, and why there is a greater diversity of U152 subclades as well. In Tuscany, Umbria, Latium and Campania the Z56 clade of R1b-U152 is dominant, while in northern Italy it is mixed with Z36 and L2, but also L21 and DF27, which are virtually absent from central Italy. Some might have come with later Celtic migrations, but Celts were too few in numbers to have increased the percentage of R1b so much in northern Italy.

Sile
30-12-16, 10:16
But Remendello has no R1b in any findings of the ancient samples............only 100% - I2a1 , Remendello ( modern eastern Lombardy )

Maybe they where indigenous to north-Italy or either went to Sardinia or came from Sardinia

Hauteville
30-12-16, 11:06
Proto-Villanovan pffh a fictitious name to say - the coming of the italic people into Italy.........there are many cultures in Italy which where IE peoples before the proto-Villanovan...........this "proto" is an excuse because the scholars where too lazy to see that:


Remedello II - [2900 - 2500 BC] - Copper Age - North Italy (Alps/Po Valley)
first expansion of Indo-Europeans; mixed Civilization;

Terremare - [1500 - 1100 BC] - Bronze Age - North Italy (Po Valley)
first substantial wave of Indo-Europeans (Umbrians) via Swiss lake-dwellings

Villanova I - [1200 - 900 BC] - Bronze Age - North Italy (Po Valley)
part of Urnfield Culture Complex; Umbrian - Pelasgian (Tyrsenoi) Hybrid;


Villanova II - [900 - 700 BC] - Iron Age - North & Central Italy (Po Valley/Appenines/Tuscany)
emergence of Etruscan Civilization (Tyrsenoi Dominant);
extensive contacts to Greek Colonies (Magna Graecia) Alphabet/Mythology/Pottery


There are more I can give you

Bell beaker culture was also Indoeuropean

https://s30.postimg.org/b2vvz6mxt/Mappa_Italia_vaso_campaniforme.jpg (https://postimg.org/image/ukqjf4jvh/)host immagini (https://postimage.org/index.php?lang=italian)

bicicleur
30-12-16, 12:30
There are indeed to many cultures in Italy to chose from.

IMO the Italic languages didn't develop in Italy, but in the Carpathian basin where both proto Italic and proto Celtic would have developped, maybe among horsebreeders 4.5 ka.
Possibly not all Italic tribes arrived in Italy at once, but in several waves.

Italic must have arived in Italy before the Etruscans.

Angela
30-12-16, 14:57
Bell beaker culture was also Indoeuropean

https://s30.postimg.org/b2vvz6mxt/Mappa_Italia_vaso_campaniforme.jpg (https://postimg.org/image/ukqjf4jvh/)host immagini (https://postimage.org/index.php?lang=italian)

Looking at the distribution in northern Italy, it certainly correlates with certain maps of U-152, but it falls apart in Sicily and Sardinia, doesn't it?

Is there a source I could access for that map? The site in the Lunigiana is precisely where the majority of the statue stele can be found.

http://www.e-archeos.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/stele-lunigiana-06.gif

This is Jean Manco's stele trail, proposed years ago.
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/2d/f0/f0/2df0f095523a8f15a29abaac515b3ec4.jpg

bicicleur
30-12-16, 20:24
Looking at the distribution in northern Italy, it certainly correlates with certain maps of U-152, but it falls apart in Sicily and Sardinia, doesn't it?



IMO U-152 is just one of the bell beaker clades, as the earliest bell beakers are older than the TMRCA of U-152 (4.5 ka if I remeber well).
the map would be clearer if you knew which were the oldest maritime bell beakers (from Iberia) and which were the more recent continental Bell Beakers

Sile
30-12-16, 23:28
Bell beaker culture was also Indoeuropean

https://s30.postimg.org/b2vvz6mxt/Mappa_Italia_vaso_campaniforme.jpg (https://postimg.org/image/ukqjf4jvh/)host immagini (https://postimage.org/index.php?lang=italian)


Can anyone actually explain BB ?

Lets see,...............LBK in BB lands, is a few thousands of years older than BB and they where farmers and pot makers.

One would think that humans regardless of time period would have developed better pots over time...............that is just human advancement.
Can we actually state that NO LBK descendants with knowledge on pot making where not involved in BB pots ?

Pax Augusta
31-12-16, 02:43
In 2013 I explained in my Genetic history of the Italians (http://www.eupedia.com/genetics/italian_dna.shtml) that the ancient Italic tribes, including the Latins/Romans would have belonged primarily to R1b-U152 (especially Z56). I mentioned that the original Latins of the Roman Republic would also have carried G2a-L140 (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_G2a_Y-DNA.shtml#Roman) (specifically the L13, L1264 and Z1816 subclades) as well as some yet unidentified J2a subclades. I have just updated the phylogenetic tree of Y-haplogroup J2 (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_J2_Y-DNA.shtml#subclades) and I came across a branch that appeared to be the ideal candidate for the Italic J2a1. That branch is Z435, immediately downstream of L70.

All L70 carriers today descend from a single patrilineal ancestor who lived about 5,000 years ago, when the Proto-Indo-Europeans started invading Central Europe from the Pontic Steppe. Indeed, a lot of J2a1-L70 are now found in Northeast Europe and Central Asia, which suggests an Indo-European dispersal from the steppes.

Z435 has a TMRCA of only 3,100 years, which corresponds roughly to the timing of the invasion of Italian peninsula by Italic tribes from the Alps. Z435 has numerous subclades of its own, and most have been identified in central Italy. The PF5456 subclade is barely 2500 years old, and would have emerged and propagated after the founding of Rome. Outside Italy, it is now found in such varied places as Spain, France, England, Belgium, southern Germany, Austria, Bulgaria or Tunisia, all regions colonised by the Romans. It would be very hard to explain how this 2500 year-old clade spread so far and wide around Europe if it weren't for the Romans.

Z2177, another subclade of Z435, is a bit under 3,000 years old and, although rare, it is found today in places like Tuscany, Sardinia and Spain, which also suggests a Roman connection.

Interesting, but there were several and different waves of IE migrations to Italy. The Italics are just a part of that. In your opinion, to which specific Italic tribe does J2a1 belong?



There are indeed to many cultures in Italy to chose from.

IMO the Italic languages didn't develop in Italy, but in the Carpathian basin where both proto Italic and proto Celtic would have developped, maybe among horsebreeders 4.5 ka.


https://s31.postimg.org/3o5uvye3v/Spread_of_the_Indo_European_Languages.jpg




Possibly not all Italic tribes arrived in Italy at once, but in several waves.

Exactly.



Italic must have arived in Italy before the Etruscans.

All what we know is that the proto-Villanovan culture (1100-900 BC) in the Etruscan area (central-southern Tuscany, northern Latium, western Umbria) is older than the rise of Etruscan civilization (800-700 BC). The proto-Villanovan culture is part of the expansion of proto-Italics in the Italian peninsula, even if IE were already arrived in Italy, at least since the Copper Age or early Bronze age.

On the other hand, "Etruscan" is an exonym, Etruscans called themselves "Rasenna" (*ras, -enna is a very old suffix still present in many northern and central Italian toponyms and idronyms, Brenna, Chiavenna o Clavenna, Crevenna, Ravenna, Scovenna, Sesenna, Varenna... also in the Reatic areas).

This is something that Sile doesn't like, but according to a recent text analysis and comprehension of the Demlfeld plate found in Austria, Etruscan and Reatic descend from a very old Tyrsenian language, called Common Tyrrhenic. The Raetic was the first to separate itself from this common linguistic ancestor, later the Etruscan. While the Lemnian derived entirely from the Etruscan, and not vice versa (Lemnian in the figure below is called Tyrrhenian). If this is correct, the presence of these non-IE languages ​​in Europe is much older than we usually believe as we can't rule out the coexistence in the same areas, at least for a certain period, of both Indo-European and non-Indo-European languages.

http://i.imgur.com/OC2JO7W.png


An epigraphic (Marchesini, chapter 6) and linguistic analysis (de Simone, chapter 7) are given to the technical description of form and content of the inscription. Moreover a conclusive, historical-linguistic chapter (Marchesini, chapter 8) complete the book, presenting an overview on the research of the Etruscan-Raetic-Tyrrenic connections. The text analysis and comprehension of the Demlfeld plate has lead us to this subject, i.e. the relationships between these three peoples (Etruscan-Raetic-Tyrrenic), since its close linguistic affinity not only with the Etruscan language, but also to the language of the Lemnian inscriptions, is evident. The recently published epigraphic text from Lemnos, namely the inscribed support of an anathema from Ephestia also confirms, in its text patterns, the deep relationship between Tyrrhenic and Etruscan. The linguistic evidence of genealogical affinity among the three languages offers a new, assured argument to support the difficult reconstruction of the pre- and proto-historical European world.



Together with Etruscan and the language of the Island of Lemnos (in Northern Aegaeis, “Tyrsenic”), the Rhaetic language belongs to a non Indo-European language family called Common Tyrrhenic, identified in 1998 by H. Rix, confirmed in 1999 by S. Schumacher and recently outlined by de Simone 2009, de Simone, Marchesini 2013 and Marchesini 2014. Common features of the three languages have been observed in phonology, morphology and syntax. Lexical correspondences are rarely attested, due not only to the limited number of well-conserved Rhaetic and Tyrsenic texts, but also to the very early date at which the languages split. According to archaeological and linguistic data, the split must have taken place prehistorically, certainly before the Bronze Age.


The genetic relationship between Etruscan and Reatic language is older than the relationship between Etruscan and Lemnian.

Sources:

La lamina di Demlfeld, Considerazioni storico linguistiche

https://www.academia.edu/5066954/La_lamina_di_Demlfeld_Considerazioni_storico_lingu istiche

https://www.academia.edu/7606972/Nuove_iscrizioni_retiche_da_Cles_e_Sanzeno_Trento_

https://www.academia.edu/6857405/I_rapporti_etrusco_retico-italici_nella_prima_Italia_alla_luce_dei_dati_ling uistici_il_caso_della_mozione_etrusca

http://lila.sns.it/mnamon/index.php?page=Lingua&id=41&lang=en


On the same wavelength, few years earlier the Dutch scholar Luuk De Ligt stated that Lemnian language could have arrived in the Aegean Sea during the Late Bronze Age, when Mycenaean rulers recruited groups of mercenaries from the Italian peninsula, Sicily and Sardinia.

http://www.talanta.nl/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/TAL-40-412008-2009-pag-151-172-DeLigt.pdf

More recently Bouke van der Meer reiterated this concept. (L. Bouke van der Meer, Leiden University, 2013).


As for Etruscan immigration(s) into Italy based on Herodotus and the non-Greek, Etruscoid Lemnian inscriptions, there is now evidence to the contrary: Etruscan pirates from Southern Etruria may have settled on Lemnos, around 700 BC or earlier and had been responsible for the inscriptions. Moreover, Carlo de Simone has definitely shown that Etruscan is not an Anatolian language.3 The Etruscan numerals, very characteristic elements of any language, do not have any parallels in Anatolian or other languages. In addition, there are no lexical comparanda in Caucasian languages.

Sile
31-12-16, 04:42
Interesting, but there were several and different waves of IE migrations to Italy. The Italics are just a part of that. In your opinion, to which specific Italic tribe does J2a1 belong?





https://s31.postimg.org/3o5uvye3v/Spread_of_the_Indo_European_Languages.jpg





Exactly.




All what we know is that the proto-Villanovan culture (1100-900 BC) in the Etruscan area (central-southern Tuscany, northern Latium, western Umbria) is older than the rise of Etruscan civilization (800-700 BC). The proto-Villanovan culture is part of the expansion of proto-Italics in the Italian peninsula, even if IE were already arrived in Italy, at least since the Copper Age or early Bronze age.

On the other hand, "Etruscan" is an exonym, Etruscans called themselves "Rasenna" (*ras, -enna is a very old suffix still present in many northern and central Italian toponyms and idronyms, Brenna, Chiavenna o Clavenna, Crevenna, Ravenna, Scovenna, Sesenna, Varenna... also in the Reatic areas).

This is something that Sile doesn't like, but according to a recent text analysis and comprehension of the Demlfeld plate found in Austria, Etruscan and Reatic descend from a very old Tyrsenian language, called Common Tyrrhenic. The Raetic was the first to separate itself from this common linguistic ancestor, later the Etruscan. While the Lemnian derived entirely from the Etruscan, and not vice versa (Lemnian in the figure below is called Tyrrhenian). If this is correct, the presence of these non-IE languages ​​in Europe is much older than we usually believe as we can't rule out the coexistence in the same areas, at least for a certain period, of both Indo-European and non-Indo-European languages.

http://i.imgur.com/OC2JO7W.png








Sources:

La lamina di Demlfeld, Considerazioni storico linguistiche

https://www.academia.edu/5066954/La_lamina_di_Demlfeld_Considerazioni_storico_lingu istiche

https://www.academia.edu/7606972/Nuove_iscrizioni_retiche_da_Cles_e_Sanzeno_Trento_

https://www.academia.edu/6857405/I_rapporti_etrusco_retico-italici_nella_prima_Italia_alla_luce_dei_dati_ling uistici_il_caso_della_mozione_etrusca

http://lila.sns.it/mnamon/index.php?page=Lingua&id=41&lang=en


On the same wavelength, few years earlier the Dutch scholar Luuk De Ligt stated that Lemnian language could have arrived in the Aegean Sea during the Late Bronze Age, when Mycenaean rulers recruited groups of mercenaries from the Italian peninsula, Sicily and Sardinia.

http://www.talanta.nl/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/TAL-40-412008-2009-pag-151-172-DeLigt.pdf

More recently Bouke van der Meer reiterated this concept. (L. Bouke van der Meer, Leiden University, 2013).

It's about time that you agreed with me:
What I do not like is that the etruscans have been in Italy since ~900BC and the Lemian stele is only from 600BC ..................so where is it that etruscan is from Lemnian..........logic states, lemnian is from etruscan, most likely etruscan traders placed it in Lemnos

The Lemnian language is the language of a 6th century BC inscription found on a funerary stela on the island of Lemnos (http://www.hellenicaworld.com/Greece/Geo/en/Lemnos.html) (termed the Lemnos stele, discovered in 1885 near Kaminia).


Raetic -Etruscan ?
The Raeti (find places in green on the map) appear to have learned the art of writing from the Veneti rather than the Etruscans (Schumacher 2004 (http://www.univie.ac.at/raetica/wiki/Schumacher_2004): 312–316). While Raetic inscriptions are only known from the 5th century onward, at a time when Etruscan inscriptions have appeared in the very North (see above), some features of the Raetic script strongly suggest a Venetic source.

bicicleur
31-12-16, 09:21
@ Angela

I found this on facebook, to be compared with the Bell Beaker distribution, but I think it is pure coincidence

https://scontent-bru2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/15781422_10211178832816756_3441939741812835236_n.j pg?oh=b604b1b4beacb6e34b36587ad7ae9774&oe=58E88FB8

Maciamo
31-12-16, 09:44
Interesting, but there were several and different waves of IE migrations to Italy. The Italics are just a part of that. In your opinion, to which specific Italic tribe does J2a1 belong?

The vast majority of J2a1 is not IE or Italic. Only some very deep subclades of J2-Z435, a tiny wig in the huge J2 tree. Considering the age of Z435 and its presence in central and eastern Europe too, its assimilation to R1b tribes would have happened in the Carpathians or somewhere along the Danube before the Italic tribes moved to Italy. Consequently, all Italic tribes should have carried it.

Hauteville
31-12-16, 09:47
A friend of mine belongs to this Subclade L70 (L398 on Geno)>>>Z435

Pax Augusta
31-12-16, 13:36
It's about time that you agreed with me:
What I do not like is that the etruscans have been in Italy since ~900BC and the Lemian stele is only from 600BC ..................so where is it that etruscan is from Lemnian..........logic states, lemnian is from etruscan, most likely etruscan traders placed it in Lemnos

It's not correct to say that Etruscans have been in Italy since ~900BC, it's more correct to say that Etruscan inscriptions are attested in Italy since 800/700 BC. Mine could seem a moot point, but there is a huge difference.

Of course I do agree with you on this, "Lemnian is from Etruscan, most likely Etruscan traders placed it in Lemnos". It's exactly what De Simone and other scholars claim.

This is the key point, on which you should pay more attention.

De Simone/Marchesini "According to archaeological and linguistic data, the split (between Reatic and Etruscan [ed.]) must have taken place prehistorically, certainly before the Bronze Age. "



Raetic -Etruscan ?
The Raeti (find places in green on the map) appear to have learned the art of writing from the Veneti rather than the Etruscans (Schumacher 2004 (http://www.univie.ac.at/raetica/wiki/Schumacher_2004): 312–316). While Raetic inscriptions are only known from the 5th century onward, at a time when Etruscan inscriptions have appeared in the very North (see above), some features of the Raetic script strongly suggest a Venetic source

Sile, you do confuse as usual the script with the language. According to what you've posted some features of the Raetic script strongly suggest a Venetic source (a Venetic source for the script not for the language). The Venetic script is thought to be an adaptation of an Etruscan script. Anyway, all these scripts - Raetic, Venetic, Etruscan, Old-Italic... (Etruscan and Old-Italic are basically the same) have the same origin, the Euboean Greek alphabet in turn of an adaptation of a Phoenician alphabet. All these scripts were used by both IE and non-IE languages.




The vast majority of J2a1 is not IE or Italic. Only some very deep subclades of J2-Z435, a tiny wig in the huge J2 tree. Considering the age of Z435 and its presence in central and eastern Europe too, its assimilation to R1b tribes would have happened in the Carpathians or somewhere along the Danube before the Italic tribes moved to Italy. Consequently, all Italic tribes should have carried it.

Got it. In your opinion was this very deep subclades of J2-Z435 assimilated to a proto-Italic culture or to a proto-Italo-Celtic culture?

Maciamo
31-12-16, 14:19
Got it. In your opinion was this very deep subclades of J2-Z435 assimilated to a proto-Italic culture or to a proto-Italo-Celtic culture?

Difficult to say for Z435. But PF5456 is only 2500 years old according to Yfull.com. If that estimate is approximately correct, then it would be exclusively Italic, and even Roman.

Pax Augusta
31-12-16, 15:04
Difficult to say for Z435. But PF5456 is only 2500 years old according to Yfull.com. If that estimate is approximately correct, then it would be exclusively Italic, and even Roman.

I'm a little bit skeptical of PF5456. 2500 years old unlikely is an Italic subclade, it's even younger than the founding of Rome.

Maciamo
31-12-16, 17:35
I'm a little bit skeptical of PF5456. 2500 years old unlikely is an Italic subclade, it's even younger than the founding of Rome.

What I meant was that it would have arisen within Italic tribes, i.e. after they settled in Italy. Since it is after the founding of Rome, it could have arisen among the Romans themselves. However the age estimate can easily be off by a few centuries, and perhaps even as much as a millennium, so it's too early to know for sure.

Sile
31-12-16, 19:02
Sile, you do confuse as usual the script with the language. According to what you've posted some features of the Raetic script strongly suggest a Venetic source (a Venetic source for the script not for the language). The Venetic script is thought to be an adaptation of an Etruscan script. Anyway, all these scripts - Raetic, Venetic, Etruscan, Old-Italic... (Etruscan and Old-Italic are basically the same) have the same origin, the Euboean Greek alphabet in turn of an adaptation of a Phoenician alphabet. All these scripts were used by both IE and non-IE languages.



Marchesani has been trying to "prop up the etruscans" as older than anyone else in central and north Italy for Years...........I doubt what she states.


Let us correct something here .............what date is the earliest etruscan civilisation in italy?.................according to Elisa Polego , the oldest Venetic is 1155BC in Veneto

Clearly we have Umbrian as older than Etruscan.

Let us not call this etruscan script/alphabet anymore as we do not know when it was brought to etruscan lands, call it as it is:

The Euboean (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euboea) alphabet was used in the cities of Eretria (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eretria) and Chalkis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalkis) and in related colonies in southern Italy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italy), notably in Cumae (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumae) and in Pithekoussai (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pithekoussai). It was through this variant that the Greek alphabet was transmitted to Italy, where it gave rise to the Old Italic alphabets (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Italic_alphabets), including Etruscan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etruscan_alphabet) and ultimately the Latin alphabet (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_alphabet).

Hauteville
01-01-17, 11:03
Can anyone actually explain BB ?

Lets see,...............LBK in BB lands, is a few thousands of years older than BB and they where farmers and pot makers.

One would think that humans regardless of time period would have developed better pots over time...............that is just human advancement.
Can we actually state that NO LBK descendants with knowledge on pot making where not involved in BB pots ?
For Marija Gimbutas BB were Indoeuropeans and Proto-Celtic people.

João Soares
05-01-17, 00:41
In 2013 I explained in my Genetic history of the Italians (http://www.eupedia.com/genetics/italian_dna.shtml) that the ancient Italic tribes, including the Latins/Romans would have belonged primarily to R1b-U152 (especially Z56). I mentioned that the original Latins of the Roman Republic would also have carried G2a-L140 (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_G2a_Y-DNA.shtml#Roman) (specifically the L13, L1264 and Z1816 subclades) as well as some yet unidentified J2a subclades. I have just updated the phylogenetic tree of Y-haplogroup J2 (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_J2_Y-DNA.shtml#subclades) and I came across a branch that appeared to be the ideal candidate for the Italic J2a1. That branch is Z435, immediately downstream of L70.

All L70 carriers today descend from a single patrilineal ancestor who lived about 5,000 years ago, when the Proto-Indo-Europeans started invading Central Europe from the Pontic Steppe. Indeed, a lot of J2a1-L70 are now found in Northeast Europe and Central Asia, which suggests an Indo-European dispersal from the steppes.

Z435 has a TMRCA of only 3,100 years, which corresponds roughly to the timing of the invasion of Italian peninsula by Italic tribes from the Alps. Z435 has numerous subclades of its own, and most have been identified in central Italy. The PF5456 subclade is barely 2500 years old, and would have emerged and propagated after the founding of Rome. Outside Italy, it is now found in such varied places as Spain, France, England, Belgium, southern Germany, Austria, Bulgaria or Tunisia, all regions colonised by the Romans. It would be very hard to explain how this 2500 year-old clade spread so far and wide around Europe if it weren't for the Romans.

Z2177, another subclade of Z435, is a bit under 3,000 years old and, although rare, it is found today in places like Tuscany, Sardinia and Spain, which also suggests a Roman connection.





Thank you for the information!

However, I am (as always, of course) very skeptical about the interpretations you made about it. I am part of this subclade L70 > PF5456, and you can imagine I have been interested in it to the point of doing research whenever I can in my spare time. I also have realized that the distribution of this clade (L70/PF5456) could partially be explained by the expansion of Romans, as your Eupedia texts suggest and appoints to.

I have additionally been making comparisons from FamilyTreeDNA and National Geographic DNA Results and also have come to the conclusion that the subclade L70, and particularly PF5456, located at east of the Rhine river (mainly Russia and Ukraine) has an overwhelming percentage of Jewish men. I inferred this by comparing specific Y-DNA J2 databases and specific Jewish databases of said project.

One point in favour of your thesis, though, can be that there is, contrary to Eastern Europe, very few L70 and PF5456 percentage of Jewish men located in Western Europe, including the British Isles -> again, always based on these projects.

I will also add that I had the opportunity to talk with the Administrator of a FamilyTreeDna Project (L24), and he suggested, since he is responsible for the draft of J2-L24 trees to my knowledge, the place of origin of PF5456 to be “somewhere in Anatolia” with the age of “3400 +/- 600 years old” .
Furthermore, yfull places L70 around “6900/5200 ybp” and the same Administrator advances with Southern Turkey/Northern Syria hypothesis for the location of origin of L70.

Having said this, I am very reluctant to associate any Y-Dna Haplogroup with any specific ethnic/religious/national/linguistic group.

João Soares
05-01-17, 02:02
Here is a map of the distribution of J2-L70:

https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?hl=en&oe=UTF8&vps=2&msa=0&ie=UTF8&mid=1XMZkpib63UEQMfyOLuiGo0wkO_E&ll=46.598505703817686%2C7.273550062500021&z=5

Hauteville
07-01-17, 09:46
Here is a map of the distribution of J2-L70:

https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?hl=en&oe=UTF8&vps=2&msa=0&ie=UTF8&mid=1XMZkpib63UEQMfyOLuiGo0wkO_E&ll=46.598505703817686%2C7.273550062500021&z=5
Overlap mostly with roman empire with a peak in Italy and old Britannia.

Maciamo
07-01-17, 17:28
Thank you for the information!

However, I am (as always, of course) very skeptical about the interpretations you made about it. I am part of this subclade L70 > PF5456, and you can imagine I have been interested in it to the point of doing research whenever I can in my spare time. I also have realized that the distribution of this clade (L70/PF5456) could partially be explained by the expansion of Romans, as your Eupedia texts suggest and appoints to.

I have additionally been making comparisons from FamilyTreeDNA and National Geographic DNA Results and also have come to the conclusion that the subclade L70, and particularly PF5456, located at east of the Rhine river (mainly Russia and Ukraine) has an overwhelming percentage of Jewish men. I inferred this by comparing specific Y-DNA J2 databases and specific Jewish databases of said project.

One point in favour of your thesis, though, can be that there is, contrary to Eastern Europe, very few L70 and PF5456 percentage of Jewish men located in Western Europe, including the British Isles -> again, always based on these projects.

I will also add that I had the opportunity to talk with the Administrator of a FamilyTreeDna Project (L24), and he suggested, since he is responsible for the draft of J2-L24 trees to my knowledge, the place of origin of PF5456 to be “somewhere in Anatolia” with the age of “3400 +/- 600 years old” .
Furthermore, yfull places L70 around “6900/5200 ybp” and the same Administrator advances with Southern Turkey/Northern Syria hypothesis for the location of origin of L70.

Having said this, I am very reluctant to associate any Y-Dna Haplogroup with any specific ethnic/religious/national/linguistic group.

The FTDNA L24 Project's administrator gives a considerably older date for PF5456 (3600 ybp) than Yfull (2800 ybp). I suppose that is the age of PF5456's appearance, not the TMRCA? In any case, the TMRCA is younger, and Yfull says only 2500 ybp. Even if it is 600 years older, that is 3100 ybp, which is after Italic tribes invaded Italy. It's very hard to see how it would have come from Anatolia and spread over all Europe within that time frame - unless PF5456 originated with the presumed Anatolian ancestors of the Etruscans. But in that case it would still have spread around western Europe and North Africa with the Romans.

If you look at the map of PF5456 (https://www.familytreedna.com/public/J-L24-Y-DNA?iframe=ymap) (+ the STR results (https://www.familytreedna.com/public/J-L24-Y-DNA?iframe=yresults), as not all of them are indicated on the map) only (not all L70) on FTDNA, there are members in the following countries/regions:

- Scotland : 6x
- Ireland : 1x
- Wales : 2x
- England : 5x (Cornwall, Devon, Lincoln, Kent)
- Netherlands : 1x
- Belgium : 2x
- France : 1x
- Denmark : 1x
- Sweden : 1x
- Germany : 7x
- Italy : 3x (including Piemonte, Campania)
- Spain : 1x
- Portugal : 4x
- Slovenia : 1x
- Bulgaria : 2x
- Tunisia : 1x
- Lebanon : 1x

Obviously commercial tests have a strong bias toward northern Europe, and especially the British Isles, so the proportions are not representative. But I find it interesting that within Britain, the PF5456 is limited to Cornwall/Devon, Wales and Lowland Scotland, three regions where the Romano-British population sought refuge from the invading Anglo-Saxons. There is also a sample from Lincoln, which was one of the main Roman cities in Britannia, and one sample from Kent, close to London (already the capital of Roman Britain). In Germany, 4 out of 6 samples are from the south, which was for centuries under Roman control, with heavy garrisons. There is even a sample in Tunisia, and within the last 3000 years the only Europeans who settled there were the Romans or the French (+ a brief passage of the Vandals). Ditto for the sample in Lebanon.

There is also a Jewish cluster (BY268 subclade) in central and eastern Europe. Ashkenazi Jews are thought to have originated in Italy before moving to Germany in the Middle Ages, then eastward from the 16th century. A minority of Ashkenazi Jewish Y-DNA lineages could actually be of Roman/Italian origin (for example the R1b-U152>Z56>L4). I think that may also be the case for J2-PF5456.


The Z2177 subclade has a higher proportion of samples from Italy.

- Scotland : 1x
- Ireland : 1x
- England : 1x
- Germany : 2x
- Switzerland : 1x
- Italy : 7x (including Trentino, Latium, Sicily)
- Greece : 1x
- Romania : 1x
- Turkey : 1x
- Syria : 1x

Yfull.com has additional samples from Sardinia and Tuscany, so Z2177 really is strongly Italy-centred.

Considering that only some deep subclades are found in the Near East, I very much doubt that PF5456 originated in that region.

João Soares
07-01-17, 20:34
Thank you Maciamo. I personally do not have the history bagage or that much time to refute or confirm this hypothesis, but you have my gratitude for this amount of effort. Regards

João Soares
08-01-17, 04:08
Maciamo, I tought we had reached some kind of consensus here. Is there a reason as to wheter the Eupedia text still refers the origin/TMRCA of these clades L70/PF5456 to "Indo-European dispersal from the steppes"? Or any relation regarding that region for that matter? Thank you

Hauteville
08-01-17, 09:55
A friend of mine belongs to J2a Z386, is it included under J2 L70?

Maciamo
08-01-17, 10:18
Maciamo, I tought we had reached some kind of consensus here. Is there a reason as to wheter the Eupedia text still refers the origin/TMRCA of these clades L70/PF5456 to "Indo-European dispersal from the steppes"? Or any relation regarding that region for that matter? Thank you

I have updated the description.

Atlantische
18-01-17, 23:43
Ј2а М319 & М92.

Ysengrin
16-03-17, 11:45
Hello everyone,

I have just tested several snp but I still do not understand everything well. So I am J2-CTS3601, subclade of Z435. I'm negative to PF5456. All possible SNP tests are completed (FTDNA). Am I blocked then? What can I do as additional tests? Are there subclades of CTS3601 still unknown? So I am CTS3601, were my ancestors originally from Italy? Or is it CTS3601 is more widely distributed than PF5456 (Tuscan).

Thank you !

João Soares
28-05-17, 06:47
Hello everyone,

I have just tested several snp but I still do not understand everything well. So I am J2-CTS3601, subclade of Z435. I'm negative to PF5456. All possible SNP tests are completed (FTDNA). Am I blocked then? What can I do as additional tests? Are there subclades of CTS3601 still unknown? So I am CTS3601, were my ancestors originally from Italy? Or is it CTS3601 is more widely distributed than PF5456 (Tuscan).

Thank you !

Hi!

I would advise you to talk to the J2-L24 FTDNA Project Admin.
Have you done the 37/67/111 marker /Big Y test? Maybe you could find a new branch under the CTS3601 line.
As to the origin, it has been suggested Anatolia, as it seems it is where it is more diversed (although suggested specifically for L70 and PF5456).

Regards.

Fatherland
08-06-17, 17:03
Probably Etruscan. J2a has its highest diversity in Mesopotamia-Caucasus area.

Ysengrin
12-06-17, 09:57
Hi!

I would advise you to talk to the J2-L24 FTDNA Project Admin.
Have you done the 37/67/111 marker /Big Y test? Maybe you could find a new branch under the CTS3601 line.
As to the origin, it has been suggested Anatolia, as it seems it is where it is more diversed (although suggested specifically for L70 and PF5456).

Regards.

Thank you !

Yes I finished the Big Y and the 111 markers test too. I found many new snp's but unfortunately i found no new branch under CTS3601 and no matches. I think to be part of a group not yet discovered or not yet registered in the subclades of the tree J2.

I spoke with the administrator of the L24 group, the only thing he was certain was that L70 was originally from anatolia. He unfortunately could not help me more for my question asked on this post.

I am registered on yfull, i expect their results...

Yaan
01-10-17, 09:15
Congratulations on the great findings. I am J2a-L70, so is my Grandpa on the mothers side, in the Bulgarian Project there are like 15 tested guys who would be L70, me and my GrandPa are proven. There would be BIG Y for him and me, one in the Christmas Sale I guess and the other one like Easter Sale. For the rest Bulgarians aside my closest matches ( 0) in Family Tree are Italians, Catholic Germans, Ashkenazi from Poland and Ukraine, Swiss, Greeks for my GrandPa Bulgarians aside is like the same plus one Arab guy I guess from Lebanon and a bunch of Brits, I guess Romans sound like a logical source. Like in Ancient times some tribe from Levant for example went into Alps and mixed with R1b-U152/L2 guys and so become Romans or something.

Maciamo could you please make a Map ? :)

lyakh
21-03-18, 23:40
In FTDNA project for J-L24 haplogroup there is quite large number of L70+ samples (https://www.familytreedna.com/public/J-L24-Y-DNA?iframe=yresults).

Branch of L70 with mutations: Z435, PH2725, P244.2 appears to be Jewish. Branch with mutations: CTS3601, PF5456, BY268 also appears to be Jewish. Why? Is it possible that J70 is from the Jews, not Italic people?

https://www.yfull.com/tree/J-L70/ (I believe in young Earth creationism, so I don't think that L70 formed 7000 ybp or has TMRCA 5500 years). J2-L70 appears to be really good candidate for being the haplogroup of biblical patriarch Abraham!

J2-L70* was found in Jordan (Ajlun region). It appears to have all mutations common for Z435 holders without Z435. I suppose that it could be from biblical Ammonites (who were also descendants of Terah, the father of Abraham). J2-L70-Z435-Z2177-PH185 was found in Syria (Deir ez-Zor region).

On YFull tree branch CTS3601 has little bottleneck (3 mutations) and TMRCA 3300 ybp (the same as Z435). CTS3601* was found in Switzerland.

#M10220 from Saudi Arabia is negative for SNP Z435. Maybe it is Ishmael lineage? #14008 from Germany is also L70+ Z435-. #357685 from Spain also is L70+ Z435-. Maybe Israelites assimilated their "cousins" like Edomites or offspring of Keturah? I suppose that L70 comes from the Jews.

A result of L70 from Wales was found in Jewish DNA FTDNA project: https://www.familytreedna.com/public/JewishDNAProject/default.aspx?section=yresults (surname James, #50950). It is next argument for the theory that exapnsion of L70 was associated with Jews. I suppose that L70 (and in addition, ALL L70) in Italy and other European countries comes from assimilated Jews. YFull dates Z435 mutation as occurring about 3300 ybp, which is quite close to the time when Jacob and Abraham lived.

Bugatti99
20-05-18, 22:27
HI there. My Y-DNA is L70+, Z435+, Z2177+... my documented lineage can be traced back to the 16th century in Abruzzo, Italy. Initially, like most, I imagine I was setting out to find my Italian ancestry via FTDNA's, Y-DNA as I wanted to parallel the document research I have been conducting for the last 14 years. The most recent discovery is from a will and testament of my ancestor where my current Italian "place name" surname was changed from the name Iaccobuccio (Jacobuccio, Jacobs). We were wealthy landowners as well as money lenders and tax collectors for the prince. Based on the findings of the FTDNA, L24 group and the current documents and change of surname(s), I am placing our family as converso, Jewish.
In April I took 6, Y-DNA samples from other men in this town. I focused on one surname, Melchiorre who we know is Jewish, then other surnames; Turchi, Persiani (his "clan name" is Noah and has ancestor names Ishmael and Judas) as well as Salomone, Tiberini, Troilo. One person, De Gregorio has already tested with Living DNA and he is J-Z2197, however, his lineage lives among the Salomone and Melchiorre in the 16th and 18th century. I took his DNA as well as I want it all through FTDNA and the results for now, are due in late June early July.
There are signs of a Jewish presence 4 miles of our town, and one ghetto which has been around since at least 1267 just 15 miles away, and another ghetto in a town called Lanciano which is about 25 miles from us. I am going back in a month or so and have 10 more samples I will be testing of other names I have been tracing through documents. We all listed Italian as our ancestry...I am taking over another account in the next town over, the family name, and clan name is, Zaccheas-- their DNA is J-M241. I have a feeling I will be finding a lot of converso's in these small towns.