PDA

View Full Version : Identifying the Y-DNA haplogroups of ancient Roman families through their descendants



Maciamo
31-03-20, 16:21
I have embarked on an ambitious project: attempting to determine the haplogroups of ancient Roman gentes based on the modern European surnames that belong to ancient Latin haplogroups. It may seem like an impossible quest because there is no guarantee that any ancient Roman surname survives to this day. Yet, last year I investigated (https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/38611-Italian-surnames-inherited-from-ancient-Romans) many Italian surnames that match ancient Roman nonima and found out that most of them are distributed principally in and around the Latium even today. This indicates a continuity in surnames since the Antiquity.

Roman citizens typically had three names: the praenomen, nomen, and cognomen (known as the tria nomina). Old and illustrious families were often divided in branches distinguished by one, two even three additional cognomina. For example, the Cornelii had branches like the Cornelii Scipiones Nasicae, or the Cornelii Scipiones Salvidieni Orfiti. Many people were known by their cognomen (e.g. Caesar for Gaius Julius Caesar) or one of their cognomina. After the fall of the Western Roman Empire, Roman naming conventions would have progressively fallen into disuse and people would have kept only one surname - probably the most used and therefore in most cases the (last) cognomen.

Obviously many names might have been corrupted over time, especially outside Italy where the adoption of new languages or new pronunciation of Latin (like in French) would have inevitably altered names over time. Sometimes a lot of imagination is required to assess the evolution of Latin names into French, German or English. Fortunately I have quite a bit of experience in the matter as a historian, toponymist (https://www.eupedia.com/belgium/belgian_place_names.shtml) and genealogist dealing with French, Dutch and German names and seeing the progressive corruptions over many centuries.

Here are the ancient Latin samples tested to date and their Y-haplogroups.



Sample
Location
Date
Haplogroup


R1016
Castel di Decima (Rome)
900-700 BCE
R1b-Z2103


R435
Palestrina Colombella (Praeneste)
600-200 BCE
R1b-CTS6389 (Z145)


R1021
Boville Ernica (Bovillae - Frosinone)
700-600 BCE
R1b-Z2118 (L51)


R437
Palestrina Selicata (Praeneste)
400-200 BCE
R1b-PR3565 (L2>ZZ56)


R850
Ardea
800-500 BCE
T1a-L208


R851
Ardea
800-500 BCE
R1b-FGC29470 (L2>DF90)




I have scrutinised the surnames for each of these haplogroups in the FTDNA projects. I could not find matches to ancient Roman names for all, but here is what I found.

R1b>L51>Z2118



Carbotti (surname found especially in Apulia, but also in Latium and northern Italy) => possibly from the cognomen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnomen) Carbo (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbo) found among the patrician gens Papiria (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papiria_(gens)).
Cominetti (rare surname found mostly in and around Lombardy) => from the gens Cominia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cominia_(gens))?
Lorio (mostly from Piemonte, but the Lori variant is from Lazio) => from Loreius?


R1b-U152>Z56>Z145>CTS6389



Cecchinelli (surname found in Latium, Tuscany, Liguria and Lombardy) => possibly from Caecinus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caecina_(gens)), an Etruscan gens. The Latin 'Cae' invariably becomes 'Ce' in Italian. The Latin 'ci' becomes 'chi' in Italian to keep the hard k sound. That gives the root 'Caecin' => 'Cecchin' + the '-elli' ending.


R1b-U152>Z56>Z145>PF6577



Camp (England) => from Campatius?


R1b-U152>Z56>S1523>BY38816



Rebel (France) => from Caninius Rebilus?


R1b-U152>Z56>Z43>BY3544>S1523(?)



Antes (Poland) => from Antius (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antia_(gens))?
Sweeting (England) => corruption of Suetonius (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suetonius) (Sweton => Sweeten => Sweeting)


R1b-U152>Z56>Z43>S47



Martin (France) => from Martinius?
(De) Surville (France) => could be from gens Servilia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Servilia_(gens)) (patrician gens of Alban origin)


R1b-U152>Z56>Z43>S47>S4634



Pluis (Netherlands) => corruption of Plinius (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plinia_(gens))?


R1b-U152>Z56>Z43>S47>Z44>CTS2827



Livesey (England) => corruption of Livius (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Livia_(gens))?


R1b-U152>L2>ZZ56



Barbato (found in all Italy, with peaks in Campania, Veneto and Lazio) => from Barbatus, a cognomen found among the gens Cornelia, Horatia and Valeria (all patricians).
Curtis => from Curtius (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtia_(gens)), another patrician gens.
Fulfisk (Sweden) => possible corruption of Fulvius, Fufius or Fuficius.
Lacopo (rare surname found essentially in Lazio and Calabria) => maybe from Laco, a cognomen found in the gens Cornelia.
Neese (Germany) => maybe a German dialect translation of Nasica, a cognomen of the gens Cornelia.


Here we have three names that could potentially fit within the great gens Cornelia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornelia_(gens)).

I have also investigated the R1b-Z193 branch, which is most common in Italy. This one gave the most impressive matches so far.

R1b-U152>Z193



Cloudt (Netherlands) => Dutch corruption of Claudius to Claud, which is spelt Cloud(t) in Dutch. So gens Claudia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claudia_(gens)).
Cowings (England), Cowan (Ireland) => a possible corruption of the cognomen Corvinus, a cognomen of the gens Valeria (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valeria_(gens)) (patrician gens of Sabine ancestry). With the Latin v pronounced as w, and the r and w sounding similar in English, Corvinus would have become Cowinus, then Cowins as the Latin -us ending were dropped. The -ing ending was adopted in English, while the Irish Celticised it to Cowan. In fact many intermediary variants exist: Corbyn, Corbin, Corvin, Corwin, Cowin, Cowins...
Mark (UK) => from Marcius, gens Marcia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcia_(gens)) (patrician gens of Sabine ancestry)
Ortensi (rare Italian surname found mostly in Lazio and Emilia-Romagna) => from Hortensius (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hortensia_(gens)) (an old plebeian gens)
Philipps (UK) => from Philippus, the cognomen of a branch of the gens Marcia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcia_(gens)) maternally descended from Philip of Macedon.
Pinard (France) => from Pinarius (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinaria_(gens)) (patrician gens of Sabine ancestry)
Probst (Germany, Switzerland) => possibly from Probus, an cognomen found in the gentes Pomponia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pomponia_(gens)) (patrician gens of Sabine ancestry), Valeria (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valeria_(gens)) (ditto) and Anicia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anicia_(gens)).
Rane (UK) => Anglicisation of Ranius (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rania_gens), another gens of Sabine ancestry.
White (UK) => translation of Albus or Albinus, an cognomen of the gens Postumia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postumia_(gens)) (patrician).


See a trend here? Many of these could be related to patrician families, mostly of Sabine ancestry, including those descended from Numa Pompilius (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numa_Pompilius), second king of Rome (ancestor of the gentes Pinaria, Pomponia and Marcia).

Even better, the surnames Cloudt (Claudius), Philipps (Marcius) and Ortensi (Hortensius) share a very close haplotype despite modern samples being from 3 different countries! This shows a common root in historical times.

Other candidates :


Ballard (France) => possibly from Aelius Balla.
Cleman (UK), Clemmentsso (Sweden) => related to the cognomen Clemens, found notably among the gens Pinaria and Cornelia (both patrician).
Host (Rhineland, Germany) => from Hostius?
Lambie (UK) => perhaps a corruption from Aelius Lamia (to Lamie then Lambie)
Kohlmann (Germany), Cole (UK) => possibly a translation from Carbo, an cognomen of the gens Papiria (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papiria_(gens)) (patrician).
Pate => Anglicisation of Paetus, a cognomen of the gens Aelia.
Verras (Greece) => possibly from Verres, Verus (gens Annia) or Varus (found in gentes Atia, Plancia, Vibia and Quinctillia).
Weir (Scotland, Ireland) => English rendering of Verus (gens Annia) with the -us ending dropped.


In this series we have 3 candidates for the gens Aelia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aelia_(gens)), all from different branches (Balla, Lamaia, Paetus).


UPDATE

The Z36 branch of R1b-Z36 is considered more Celtic than Italic. Nevertheless a few people have names that might betray a Latin origin. However, considering how few matches I found within Z36 and how generic the names are, I would rather believe that these are Celtic people who adopted Latin-sounding names.

R1b-U152>Z36


Anthoine (rare French version with an h, found near Italy and in Alsace), Antonini (peaks in Lazio, then central and northern Italy) => from the gens Antonia?
Alby (unknown origin, but most common in Mediterranean France and also found in Italy and Rhineland), Albrich (found mostly in South Germany and Rhineland) => from Albius?
Keller => from the cognomen Celer
Venter => from the cognomen Venter



The single Etruscan sample whose Y-DNA is known belongs to J2b-CTS6190, a branch that is today found in Italy, Switzerland, Portugal, England and the Netherlands, with an expansion in the last 2000 years. Interestingly there is a Jewish cluster within that branch. I couldn't find any potential Roman name within CTS6190, but I found some within its sister branch Z38241 (both descending from Z38240 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/J-Z38240/)), which has a wide 'Roman-like' distribution from England to Syria and from Portugal to Germany.

J2b2-L283>Z585>Z2507>Z38240>Z38241


Allis (rare surname found in England)=> corruption from Aelius or Alienus? The latter may be of Etruscan origin.
Mattis (Germany), Mathes (Switzerland) => perhaps from the minor gens Matia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matia_(gens)) or Matiena (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matiena_(gens))?


J2b2-L283>Z585>Z2507>Z638>Z631


Ellis (found especially around Chester, a major Roman fort) => corruption from Aelius or Alienus?


Note that J2b2-Z38240 and J2b2b-Z631 also have Jewish subclades. As this haplogroup is not originally Jewish, it is likely that these rare Jewish J2b2 clades represent either ancient Romans/Italians converted to Judaism, or non-paternity events. The same can be seen with several R1b-U152 subclades (L2>BY3508 ; L2>ZZ56>L408 ; Z56>Z43>S1523 ; Z56>Z43>Z145>PF6582 and Z36>S8024>A7983, which all have Italian, Jewish and European distributions).

Salento
31-03-20, 16:48
@Maciano ... hope you're doing well ...

I’m not sure about a connection, but there are also Curtiss (about 1600 AD, I think) that are y T-Z19945 / BY64684

@Torzio knows much more about their background,
and we’re both positive for T-Z19945 :)

R850 (Ardea, from above) is also y T, although it's a different line from mine.

https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/29626-Questions-on-my-Y-DNA-Haplogroup-T?p=592451&viewfull=1#post592451

https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/29626-Questions-on-my-Y-DNA-Haplogroup-T?p=599145&viewfull=1#post599145

Joey37
03-04-20, 03:40
There are two other Venter haplotypes besides the Z36; biologist Craig Venter is U106, while the Afrikaner Venters are my R1a-YP445.

Maciamo
03-04-20, 22:51
Haplogroup G2a hasn't been found among ancient Latins yet, but I am confident that some branches (U1>L13, U1>L1264 and/or L497>Z1816) will be found as a minority of Latin lineages as these lineages seem to have spread with the Indo-Europeans and are found at relatively high frequency in central Italy today. Z1816 in particular shows a strong correlation with the distribution and expansion age of R1b-U152.

G2a-L140>L497>Z1816


Canter (England) => from gens Cantia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantia_(gens))?
Clemens (Germany) => common Roman cognomen
Coelho (Portugal) => from the gens Coelia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coelia_(gens))?
Cordey (Switzerland) => from the gens Cordia?
Ellis (Wales) => from Aelius?
Messier (France) from Messienus?
Quinn (Ireland) => from the gens Quintia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinctia_(gens))?
Papineau (France) => from the gens Papinia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papinia_(gens)) (of Sabine or Samnite origin)?
Paul (Germany + Netherlands) => from Paulus?
Platt/Plott (Germany) => from Plautius
Price (Wales) => from the gens Precia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precia_gens)?
Stacy (England) => from Statius?


G2a-L140>U1>L13


Flores (found in all Italy, with peaks in Lazio, Lombardy and Sicily) => from gens Floria (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scaevia_gens) or from the cognomen Florus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florus_(Roman_name))
Horton (England)=> from Hordeonius?
Lemmond (England) => from the gens Lemonia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemonia_gens)?
Petro (Italy, mostly Lombardy) => from gens Petronia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petronia_gens) or Petreia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petreia_(gens)) or from the cognomen Petrus


G2a-L140>U1>L1264


Papp (Hungary) => from gens Papia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papia_(gens)) (of Samnite origin)

Stuvanè
04-04-20, 00:01
There is a legend that claims that the J2 Montgomeries may have had Roman ancestors (Gomericus), before becoming Normans and Scottish nobles.
Is it reliable?



https://www.scotweb.co.uk/info/montgomery/

Maciamo
04-04-20, 11:43
There is a legend that claims that the J2 Montgomeries may have had Roman ancestors (Gomericus), before becoming Normans and Scottish nobles.
Is it reliable?

https://www.scotweb.co.uk/info/montgomery/

Etymologically, the surname Montgomery comes from the eponymous village in Normandy, which has a Germanic root (Gomery => from Guma + ric). No Latin nomen starts with Gom-.

Now genetically the Montgomery lineages (https://www.familytreedna.com/public/Montgomery?iframe=yresults) fall mostly in two groups: J2a-L26>Z6055>Y7010>Y13128>Y16842 and R1b-L21>DF13>DF21>DF5>L627. Neither is of Latin or Italic origin.

Maciamo
04-04-20, 13:50
Another haplogroup that I have associated with the ancient Romans is J2a-L26>L70>Z435 (https://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_J2_Y-DNA.shtml#Roman), which has a coalescence age of 3400 years and is distributed almost exclusively within boundaries the Roman empire. I now think that it was not originally Italic, but was absorbed early from neighbours of the Romans, either the Etruscans or the Greeks.

J2a-L26>Z438>L70>Z435


Caruso (common surname, sample from Calabria) => maybe from Carus?


Here are two other related branches of Z438, also common in Italy.

J2a-L26>Z438>Z387>FGC35503


Côté/Cote (France) => from the cognomen Cotta? (found among gentes Aurelia, Aurunculeia, Pomponia...)
Crass (England) => hard to believe anyone would keep that surname if if wasn't inherited from Crassus, a branch of the illustrious (though plebeian) gens Licinia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licinia_(gens)) (which is believed to be of Etruscan origin).


J2a-L26>Z438>L70>Z2148


Auler (Germany, mostly Rhineland) => from the gens Aulia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aulia_(gens))?
Louks => from Lucius?


Unknown branches of J2a-L26>L70:


Orbelian (Armenia) => from gens Orbilia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbilia_(gens))?
Tiberia (from Frosinone, Lazio) + Tiberino (Chieti, Abruzzo) => surely from Tiberianus, although only one person of that name is on Wikipedia (the 2nd century legionary and poet Claudius Tiberianus).

Pax Augusta
07-04-20, 15:11
After the fall of the Roman Empire in Italy the use of surnames disappeared for many centuries. The current Italian surnames do not descend hereditarily in any way from the surnames of the family of Roman times, there is only a linguistic connection but not of ancestry/descendence.

And this also applies to the other countries of the Roman Empire.

Salento
07-04-20, 16:25
@Pax
imho it’s possible that many family surnames informally survived as nicknames until renormalizing again later, especially in important families, and those of historical impact.

The problem is to identify the legit families that inherited the ancient original surname, from those who adopted the surname in more recent periods.

Even today, many families have generational nicknames.

When I go back to Italy in my Town on vacation and someone asks me who I am, my last name means nothing to them.

They're actually asking me who I really am, and I have to say my generational family nickname (Father and sometimes Mother side too)

I guess my surname is partially artificial :)

Pax Augusta
07-04-20, 17:36
@Pax
imho it’s possible that many family surnames informally survived as nicknames until renormalizing again later, especially in important families, and those of historical impact.


There's no evidence of that.

Maciamo
07-04-20, 20:14
After the fall of the Roman Empire in Italy the use of surnames disappeared for many centuries. The current Italian surnames do not descend hereditarily in any way from the surnames of the family of Roman times, there is only a linguistic connection but not of ancestry/descendence.

And this also applies to the other countries of the Roman Empire.

I somehow doubt that. The use of surnames may seem to have disappeared from the historical record because literacy and administration crashed after the Western Roman Empire came to an end. But that doesn't mean that people suddenly forgot what their family or clan name was. The sense of belonging to a family is deeply ingrained in the human psyche and the division of society by families and clans long predates the adoption of writing. What could have happened and surely did happen is that once people stopped writing, family names got corrupted over time, especially as Latin evolved to new languages. If all surnames vanished during the Dark Ages, how do you explain that Latin sounding names survived in Germanised regions that used to be part of the empire (England, Netherlands, Rhineland, South Germany, Austria)? And why do these names coincide with the places most heavily settled by Roman legionaries?

Why would ancient Roman names be more common today in central Italy, and especially around Lazio, than in other parts of Italy? It's not like the whole population of late medieval and Renaissance Latium, which was then heavily Christian and made mostly of uneducated peasants, suddenly took an interest in ancient Roman history and decided to adopt Roman nomina and cognomina to sound more pagan. Even today most people couldn't name 30 ancient Roman gentes. Yet, almost all gentes, hundreds of them, have matching surnames that survive today.

Salento
07-04-20, 20:22
There's no evidence of that.

The evidence must have got lost in the annals of time.

Surname / family nicknames tell us apart!

Family name gives a sense of identity and belonging.

I doubt that people wouldn’t try to hold on to their family names when possible regardless of their Era,
and many Ancient surnames must have made it legitimately to today.
I Think!

torzio
07-04-20, 20:50
@Pax
imho it’s possible that many family surnames informally survived as nicknames until renormalizing again later, especially in important families, and those of historical impact.

The problem is to identify the legit families that inherited the ancient original surname, from those who adopted the surname in more recent periods.

Even today, many families have generational nicknames.

When I go back to Italy in my Town on vacation and someone asks me who I am, my last name means nothing to them.

They're actually asking me who I really am, and I have to say my generational family nickname (Father and sometimes Mother side too)

I guess my surname is partially artificial :)

what do you mean nicknames ..............the "detto" ones?

I can agree with this if this is what you refer to


The surnames that have the detto in it, are complex through italian history .................some refer to an occupation, some to a persons trait or mannerisms or even as per my line a reference to a venetian family ( part of the council of 250 ), although removed after 2 generations , circa 1750

then there is the "dalla" ones ............which are completely 100% a maternal link to a different surname

Salento
07-04-20, 21:24
what do you mean nicknames ..............the "detto" ones?

I can agree with this if this is what you refer to


The surnames that have the detto in it, are complex through italian history .................some refer to an occupation, some to a persons trait or mannerisms or even as per my line a reference to a venetian family ( part of the council of 250 ), although removed after 2 generations , circa 1750

then there is the "dalla" ones ............which are completely 100% a maternal link to a different surname

from my Father side the multi-generational nickname is an Island in Central Italy famous for its prison.

We have no idea how we got that name, but it’s easy to speculate, maybe my Great great ... Grandpa was sent there on vacation, lol

torzio
07-04-20, 21:32
from my Father side the multi-generational nickname is an Island in Central Italy famous for its prison.

We have no idea how we got that name, but it’s easy to speculate, maybe my Great great ... Grandpa was sent there on vacation, lol

my surname comes from a christian name Ropreto/Rupret .............but it does not start with a R

so there are many ways , one has gained a surname .............even in the USA , they misspelled surnames and they heard it presented

Salento
07-04-20, 21:56
my surname comes from a christian name Ropreto/Rupret .............but it does not start with a R

so there are many ways , one has gained a surname .............even in the USA , they misspelled surnames and they heard it presented

That doesn't apply to me, I’m a US citizen, but I’m a newcomer,
my name hasn't changed.

... as you know, in Italy my surname is very popular, that's why the need for the extra informal family nickname at the local level.

Ahmed
07-04-20, 22:58
Hi Maciamo. I am R-Z193 though i am from Egypt so this may explain the contradiction between my name and my haplogroup which is very rare in Egypt. I am sure my family used to have a different surname in the past but once converted to Islam they changed their last name. I don't have BigY matches so far but i hope one day i find a match that could help me to know where my ancestors came from, i guess it is a Roman family. I can see some Italian matches in DNA Land website and the closest one's surname is Manzari, it could mean nothing but i am trying and waiting to find strong connection with my old family. I would appreciate if you have any advice.

Stuvanè
09-04-20, 01:44
I somehow doubt that. The use of surnames may seem to have disappeared from the historical record because literacy and administration crashed after the Western Roman Empire came to an end. But that doesn't mean that people suddenly forgot what their family or clan name was. The sense of belonging to a family is deeply ingrained in the human psyche and the division of society by families and clans long predates the adoption of writing. What could have happened and surely did happen is that once people stopped writing, family names got corrupted over time, especially as Latin evolved to new languages. If all surnames vanished during the Dark Ages, how do you explain that Latin sounding names survived in Germanised regions that used to be part of the empire (England, Netherlands, Rhineland, South Germany, Austria)? And why do these names coincide with the places most heavily settled by Roman legionaries?

Why would ancient Roman names be more common today in central Italy, and especially around Lazio, than in other parts of Italy? It's not like the whole population of late medieval and Renaissance Latium, which was then heavily Christian and made mostly of uneducated peasants, suddenly took an interest in ancient Roman history and decided to adopt Roman nomina and cognomina to sound more pagan. Even today most people couldn't name 30 ancient Roman gentes. Yet, almost all gentes, hundreds of them, have matching surnames that survive today.


@ Maciamo, surely there will also have been some lucky ones who could have kept memory of its ancient-Roman predecessors even during the Middle Ages. Perhaps some aristocrats, but not even for the Colonna of Rome themselves, descendants of the Counts of Tusculum, who boasted an origin from the gens Julia, it was possible to document illustrious predecessors before the IX century. Many more - even among ordinary people - adopted new onomastic and cognominal strategies precisely between the end of antiquity and the early modern age. In my opinion, fixing on the persistence or not of names is useful to delineate some historical, social and cultural phenomena, but it can be a deadly pitfall to identify the ethnos of individuals or groups.
In the case of Italy, surnames are fixed and consolidated only after the relative provisions of the Council of Trento in 1564, when parish priests are obliged to keep careful note of baptisms in parish registers. In any case, it was a gradual process, if we think that in some rural areas the surnames were even fixed in the XIX century. Before the Tridentine Council and for at least a thousand years the situation of names was absolutely magmatic.


In many European countries, surnames are often patronymic forms. In Italy especially in northern and central Italy they end in "-i", derived from the genitive of a proper name or a nickname, or - according to a more recent theory - of the "plural" referred to and extended to the whole family group , always modeled on the name / nickname of a progenitor.
Now it is true that the choice of the proper name tends to mature in a precise ethnic context (in southern Italy no one would suddenly start baptizing a daughter "Dragana" instead of "Diletta", even if it has basically the same meaning). But let's talk about a situation extremely permeable to other influences and influences, even in a short time or a few generations.
The indigenous people of a region, almost always for reasons of prestige or for intent to assimilate towards their rulers, can assume relatively quickly non-native forms of proper names - and therefore in turn originate surnames with non-local roots. Already the "barbarians" assimilated in the ranks of Rome in the imperial and late ancient ages bore absolutely Latin and / or Romanized names. In the Gallo-Roman world and along all the current territories of continental Europe that you mention, belonging to the Roman Empire, I believe this was almost the norm. Flavius ​​Victor, military general under Constantius II and Valens, was a Sarmatian; Aetius himself was perhaps of Gothic or Scythic stock for his father (who was still called Gaudentius!), and was only Roman / Italic for his mother.


Even the advent of Christianity has considerably renewed the heritage of onomastics, but the assumption of names of biblical-christian tradition, of apostles or prophets, does not immediately make their bearers or the surnames that derive from them Jewish or Middle Eastern.
Here too motivations of social prestige or religious devotion come into play, not infrequently combining among them: many Gothic priests of the Aryan clergy of Ravenna in the mid-sixth century have names of Jewish-Christian origin. In the same years, a lady in Como named Guntelda gave birth to a son called Basilius, a greek name like few others, perhaps exactly at the time when the Byzantines took power in Italy. But Basilius' son goes back to his name Guntio, probably because the Lombards were coming, and re-germanising the name could become more convenient. In essence, in the transition between late Antiquity and the early Middle Ages it is quite certain that whoever wore a Celtic or Germanic coinage name was not an ethnic Roman, while those who adopted Roman names could encrypt an extra-Italic origin, even a recent one (a phenomenon that continued for a long time : see again Bonifacius, Marquis of Tuscany in the middle of the 9th century, who was a Bavarian).


With the Lombards and the Franks arriving in Italy a little later, the Germanic onomastic system clears customs among us and for the same reasons, but inverse to the previous ones, the Italics who are gradually becoming Italian begin to assume names (and later surnames) of origin North European. Now the prestige comes from the new lords who came from the north, and obviously the phenomenon is more accentuated in the regions of the North and Center of the Peninsula, which were directly dominated by them. Italics with a Germanic patina, exactly like a few centuries earlier we found Celts and Germans somewhat latinized along the Rhine and Danubian limes of the Empire.

The fact that cognominal systems derived from the names of the ancient Romans persist in Central Italy doesn't surprise me: we are however talking about that area where the ethnic Romans were indigenous, so either by blood or by direct cultural irradiation it would have been impossible to supplant completely the local onomastic tradition, however courtly. (It may also be the case that we are talking about families of humble origin, but whose ancestors found themselves in the service of landowners and gentlemen from whom they borrowed the name ...).


Other times things get even more complicated. Keep in mind that sometimes the maternal line is the one that has the pre-eminence and can change the name / surname of the family irreversibly, also here almost always for reasons of greater social prestige. Our greatest poet, Dante, in the "Divine Comedy" often made reference and pride to the Roman ancestry of Florentines like him. He was a descendant by paternal line from a Tuscan / Central-Italian aristocratic family, the Elisei, but Dante's great-great-grandfather, Cacciaguida, married a lady from an equally and perhaps even more illustrious family, that one of the "Aldighieri", originally from the Po Valley, from which the descendants then took the surname. Here is another Germanic surname, which is not said to be a spy of authentic Nordic roots, for the same reasons mentioned above.


I don't want to go too far, I haven't focused on other numerous categories of surnames that have imposed themselves over the centuries. Anything is possible in this world, but thinking that ancient names and surnames may have been handed down completely unscathed without considering the heavy and complex medieval passage is at least very risky. I attach a small contribution (in Italian) by Carla Marcato who teaches at the Udine University to give an idea of ​​the extraordinary complexity of this phenomenon

https://edizionicafoscari.unive.it/media/pdf/books/978-88-6969-111-9/978-88-6969-111-9-ch-02.pdf?fbclid=IwAR0zrmc6JZ3Oo2xNAeyhZD0Lax9nI_t_WR G6Rir48VxdraipzAl8AsWn5Gk

Angela
09-04-20, 02:55
I agree. There is no way of telling with any precision which names might belong to "descendants" of Roman gens. Names arose in too many ways.

Even with "aristocratic" names, although some people might like to claim a genetic relationship with certain prominent families, unless the paper trail is clear, and sometimes not even then, it's much more likely that retainers of some kind adopted the name. That was even more true in Roman times, when "clients" would adopt the family name.

That happened in my mother's maternal family, where "Malaspina", the name of the lords of much of Massa Carrara, appears quite often. No one in her family had any interest in claiming a relationship; socialists and anarchists almost to a man (and woman)! :)

I share their sentiments. That family had no redeeming features; all they ever did was bleed the people try. One of our folk songs talks about the Lunigiana as the land dove "mangian" the Malaspina. Some of the old people used to literally spit when they heard the name, the same as they did when speaking of the Nazis during the war. I'm always reminded of it when I hear the Simon and Garfunkel song "Me and Julio Down by the School Yard", where "mamma looked down and spit on the ground every time my name gets mentioned." :)

Not something to do in the current circumstances.

The other common name which occurs is Ghelfi, so I know which side those ancestors took, and Galletti. Whether the latter means Gauls or that we always loved mushrooms, I don't know. :)

Unfortunately, I don't know the yDna of those people.

My father was U-152, but his name is associated with the military and warfare, so maybe he had a soldier ancestor who, when the tide turned around 1000 AD, took off to the Appennini.

Genetics is a different thing. We do know the y Dna of some of the Republican Era Latins, and we may find out more.

Maciamo
09-04-20, 18:25
@ Maciamo, surely there will also have been some lucky ones who could have kept memory of its ancient-Roman predecessors even during the Middle Ages. Perhaps some aristocrats, but not even for the Colonna of Rome themselves, descendants of the Counts of Tusculum, who boasted an origin from the gens Julia, it was possible to document illustrious predecessors before the IX century. Many more - even among ordinary people - adopted new onomastic and cognominal strategies precisely between the end of antiquity and the early modern age. In my opinion, fixing on the persistence or not of names is useful to delineate some historical, social and cultural phenomena, but it can be a deadly pitfall to identify the ethnos of individuals or groups.
In the case of Italy, surnames are fixed and consolidated only after the relative provisions of the Council of Trento in 1564, when parish priests are obliged to keep careful note of baptisms in parish registers. In any case, it was a gradual process, if we think that in some rural areas the surnames were even fixed in the XIX century. Before the Tridentine Council and for at least a thousand years the situation of names was absolutely magmatic.

I understand that the majority of surnames have changed since the Late Antiquity. But most does not necessarily mean all. My method was to search the FTDNA projects within haplogroups that were confirmed to be found among ancient Latins, or that I predicted will be found among them (note that I had already correctly predicted that ancient Italics would belong to R1b-U152>Z56 and R1b-U152>Z193 many years ago). So these lineages are very probably of Roman/Latin/Italic origin, even outside of Italy. The difficulty was to find modern surnames that "might" have survived through the ages, even if in heavily corrupted form. When it comes to R1b-Z56, R1b-Z193 and R1b-L2>ZZ56, I have only found 33 surnames that could possibly qualify after searching the U152 project and all national projects for western Europe. That's barely 1% of all the current surnames of people with probable Italic Y-DNA. Really not a lot.

You say that Italian surnames were consolidated in 1564 because of the obligation to keep baptism registries. But that's only for written forms. It does not mean that surnames didn't exist before and that they were not inherited from father to son as always before. It's just that they were more likely to "evolve" like the language, with Latin names like Caecinus becoming Cechino or Cecchini or something else.


In many European countries, surnames are often patronymic forms.

This is true especially for Spain, Portugal, Scandinavia and Slavic countries. There are exceptions like Fulfisk in Scandinavia, which I listed among the R1b-Z193 and that do not sound Germanic at all (apart from the Germanised -isk ending) and therefore are more likely to be among the ancient Roman names that ending up one way of another in Scandinavia, perhaps like the Italian Jews of Antiquity ended up in Central and Eastern Europe a few centuries ago.

In countries like the UK, France, Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany, many families can trace back their ancestors to the Middle Ages. My oldest genealogical lineage that is not from the high nobility (medieval counts, dukes, etc.) goes back to the early 11th century and that surname hasn't changed in nearly 1000 years. The same is true for British families of Norman origin. The oldest Belgian family can trace its pedigree to the 9th century. And that's just for written records that have luckily survived to this day. That doesn't mean that family names originated at that time. Just that the administration didn't keep records beforehand or that they have been lost.



The indigenous people of a region, almost always for reasons of prestige or for intent to assimilate towards their rulers, can assume relatively quickly non-native forms of proper names - and therefore in turn originate surnames with non-local roots. Already the "barbarians" assimilated in the ranks of Rome in the imperial and late ancient ages bore absolutely Latin and / or Romanized names. In the Gallo-Roman world and along all the current territories of continental Europe that you mention, belonging to the Roman Empire, I believe this was almost the norm. Flavius ​​Victor, military general under Constantius II and Valens, was a Sarmatian; Aetius himself was perhaps of Gothic or Scythic stock for his father (who was still called Gaudentius!), and was only Roman / Italic for his mother.


I know. That's why I didn't list all those non-Italian emperors who adopted the names of famous Roman gentes in my list of prominent Roman gentes (https://www.eupedia.com/history/most_famous_roman_gentes.shtml). But that's irrelevant for this thread as I only select surnames among the people who have Italic Y-DNA. I am not looking for Latin-sounding names among R1a, R1b-U106, I1, I2-Din and other obviously non-Italic haplogroups!



Even the advent of Christianity has considerably renewed the heritage of onomastics, but the assumption of names of biblical-christian tradition, of apostles or prophets, does not immediately make their bearers or the surnames that derive from them Jewish or Middle Eastern.
Here too motivations of social prestige or religious devotion come into play, not infrequently combining among them: many Gothic priests of the Aryan clergy of Ravenna in the mid-sixth century have names of Jewish-Christian origin. In the same years, a lady in Como named Guntelda gave birth to a son called Basilius, a greek name like few others, perhaps exactly at the time when the Byzantines took power in Italy. But Basilius' son goes back to his name Guntio, probably because the Lombards were coming, and re-germanising the name could become more convenient. In essence, in the transition between late Antiquity and the early Middle Ages it is quite certain that whoever wore a Celtic or Germanic coinage name was not an ethnic Roman, while those who adopted Roman names could encrypt an extra-Italic origin, even a recent one (a phenomenon that continued for a long time : see again Bonifacius, Marquis of Tuscany in the middle of the 9th century, who was a Bavarian).


With the Lombards and the Franks arriving in Italy a little later, the Germanic onomastic system clears customs among us and for the same reasons, but inverse to the previous ones, the Italics who are gradually becoming Italian begin to assume names (and later surnames) of origin North European. Now the prestige comes from the new lords who came from the north, and obviously the phenomenon is more accentuated in the regions of the North and Center of the Peninsula, which were directly dominated by them. Italics with a Germanic patina, exactly like a few centuries earlier we found Celts and Germans somewhat latinized along the Rhine and Danubian limes of the Empire.

I completely agree. Many people changed their surnames because it was socially or culturally advantageous to do so. When people converted to Christianity, many people chose to adopt Christian surnames to replace their pagan ones. When Germanic people became the new rulers and nobility, some people dropped their old family name to adopt Germanic ones either to socio-political reasons, or simply to "fit in". Let's not forget all the non-paternity events that would have caused a lot of discrepancies between Y-DNA lineage and surnames. The advantage of having Y-DNA is that we can already reject all the Latin surnames with Germanic Y-DNA (e.g. medieval nobles of Germanic descent raping peasant girls or using their jus primae noctis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droit_du_seigneur)).



(It may also be the case that we are talking about families of humble origin, but whose ancestors found themselves in the service of landowners and gentlemen from whom they borrowed the name ...).

The Roman tradition for adopted people or servants who adopted their master's cognomen was to change the -us ending to -ianus. So a servant of the Aemilii family would become an Aemilianus, and over time Emiliano or Emilani in modern central and northern Italy. In southern Italy though, these names became "Di/De + surname", as in D'Emiliani, Di Marco, Di Tullio...


Other times things get even more complicated. Keep in mind that sometimes the maternal line is the one that has the pre-eminence and can change the name / surname of the family irreversibly, also here almost always for reasons of greater social prestige. Our greatest poet, Dante, in the "Divine Comedy" often made reference and pride to the Roman ancestry of Florentines like him. He was a descendant by paternal line from a Tuscan / Central-Italian aristocratic family, the Elisei, but Dante's great-great-grandfather, Cacciaguida, married a lady from an equally and perhaps even more illustrious family, that one of the "Aldighieri", originally from the Po Valley, from which the descendants then took the surname.

Yes, but these cases are very rare. Anyway I am not saying that my method is fool-proof. We can only suppose, never be certain. Ideally we should find people from different regions and countries with similar surnames (or derived from cognomina of the same gens) and exactly the same deep clade (with a TMRCA within 2500 years). For example within a same clade I found someone in England with the surname Curtis who matched an Italian with the surname Curti or Corti and a third German individual named Curtius (the surname exist in the Rhineland and South Germany, though rare), then we would have a solid case for the gens Curtia belonging to that deep clade. For example, so far I found 3 individuals with surnames matching cognomina of the gens Cornelia who all belonged to R1b-L2>ZZ56. Evene better, all the patrician gentes of Sabine origin seem to fit within R1b-Z193! That cannot be just a coincidence.

bigsnake49
09-04-20, 18:43
It seems that there is some influence of Genovese/Venetian colonies in the Black Sea shores on the surnames of Greek or Hellenized residents. A small number of surnames from the North Thrace, Eastern Thrace areas carry Italian/Latin roots, names like Tzoundas or Pinelis. Remember that the Venetian and Genovese were granted broad preferential trading privileges throughout the Byzantine Empire after one of the Crusades (4th?) and both Genoa and Venice availed themselves of those privileges.

torzio
09-04-20, 18:49
I understand that the majority of surnames have changed since the Late Antiquity. But most does not necessarily mean all. My method was to search the FTDNA projects within haplogroups that were confirmed to be found among ancient Latins, or that I predicted will be found among them (note that I had already correctly predicted that ancient Italics would belong to R1b-U152>Z56 and R1b-U152>Z193 many years ago). So these lineages are very probably of Roman/Latin/Italic origin, even outside of Italy. The difficulty was to find modern surnames that "might" have survived through the ages, even if in heavily corrupted form. When it comes to R1b-Z56, R1b-Z193 and R1b-L2>ZZ56, I have only found 33 surnames that could possibly qualify after searching the U152 project and all national projects for western Europe. That's barely 1% of all the current surnames of people with probable Italic Y-DNA. Really not a lot.

You say that Italian surnames were consolidated in 1564 because of the obligation to keep baptism registries. But that's only for written forms. It does not mean that surnames didn't exist before and that they were not inherited from father to son as always before. It's just that they were more likely to "evolve" like the language, with Latin names like Caecinus becoming Cechino or Cecchini or something else.



This is true especially for Spain, Portugal, Scandinavia and Slavic countries. There are exceptions like Fulfisk in Scandinavia, which I listed among the R1b-Z193 and that do not sound Germanic at all (apart from the Germanised -isk ending) and therefore are more likely to be among the ancient Roman names that ending up one way of another in Scandinavia, perhaps like the Italian Jews of Antiquity ended up in Central and Eastern Europe a few centuries ago.

In countries like the UK, France, Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany, many families can trace back their ancestors to the Middle Ages. My oldest genealogical lineage that is not from the high nobility (medieval counts, dukes, etc.) goes back to the early 11th century and that surname hasn't changed in nearly 1000 years. The same is true for British families of Norman origin. The oldest Belgian family can trace its pedigree to the 9th century. And that's just for written records that have luckily survived to this day. That doesn't mean that family names originated at that time. Just that the administration didn't keep records beforehand or that they have been lost.



I know. That's why I didn't list all those non-Italian emperors who adopted the names of famous Roman gentes in my list of prominent Roman gentes (https://www.eupedia.com/history/most_famous_roman_gentes.shtml). But that's irrelevant for this thread as I only select surnames among the people who have Italic Y-DNA. I am not looking for Latin-sounding names among R1a, R1b-U106, I1, I2-Din and other obviously non-Italic haplogroups!



I completely agree. Many people changed their surnames because it was socially or culturally advantageous to do so. When people converted to Christianity, many people chose to adopt Christian surnames to replace their pagan ones. When Germanic people became the new rulers and nobility, some people dropped their old family name to adopt Germanic ones either to socio-political reasons, or simply to "fit in". Let's not forget all the non-paternity events that would have caused a lot of discrepancies between Y-DNA lineage and surnames. The advantage of having Y-DNA is that we can already reject all the Latin surnames with Germanic Y-DNA (e.g. medieval nobles of Germanic descent raping peasant girls or using their jus primae noctis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droit_du_seigneur)).




The Roman tradition for adopted people or servants who adopted their master's cognomen was to change the -us ending to -ianus. So a servant of the Aemilii family would become an Aemilianus, and over time Emiliano or Emilani in modern central and northern Italy. In southern Italy though, these names became "Di/De + surname", as in D'Emiliani, Di Marco, Di Tullio...



Yes, but these cases are very rare. Anyway I am not saying that my method is fool-proof. We can only suppose, never be certain. Ideally we should find people from different regions and countries with similar surnames (or derived from cognomina of the same gens) and exactly the same deep clade (with a TMRCA within 2500 years). For example within a same clade I found someone in England with the surname Curtis who matched an Italian with the surname Curti or Corti and a third German individual named Curtius (the surname exist in the Rhineland and South Germany, though rare), then we would have a solid case for the gens Curtia belonging to that deep clade. For example, so far I found 3 individuals with surnames matching cognomina of the gens Cornelia who all belonged to R1b-L2>ZZ56. Evene better, all the patrician gentes of Sabine origin seem to fit within R1b-Z193! That cannot be just a coincidence.

De + surname is the French and Spanish system and applies in Italy historically, where french or Aragon/Castilian owned/ruled Italian lands ....................the correct italian system is Di for a person and Da for a place ( ie Da Vinci,....from Vinci ) ......or D'Surname, which is same as Di

Do is the portuguese system

torzio
09-04-20, 19:11
@ Maciamo, surely there will also have been some lucky ones who could have kept memory of its ancient-Roman predecessors even during the Middle Ages. Perhaps some aristocrats, but not even for the Colonna of Rome themselves, descendants of the Counts of Tusculum, who boasted an origin from the gens Julia, it was possible to document illustrious predecessors before the IX century. Many more - even among ordinary people - adopted new onomastic and cognominal strategies precisely between the end of antiquity and the early modern age. In my opinion, fixing on the persistence or not of names is useful to delineate some historical, social and cultural phenomena, but it can be a deadly pitfall to identify the ethnos of individuals or groups.
In the case of Italy, surnames are fixed and consolidated only after the relative provisions of the Council of Trento in 1564, when parish priests are obliged to keep careful note of baptisms in parish registers. In any case, it was a gradual process, if we think that in some rural areas the surnames were even fixed in the XIX century. Before the Tridentine Council and for at least a thousand years the situation of names was absolutely magmatic.


In many European countries, surnames are often patronymic forms. In Italy especially in northern and central Italy they end in "-i", derived from the genitive of a proper name or a nickname, or - according to a more recent theory - of the "plural" referred to and extended to the whole family group , always modeled on the name / nickname of a progenitor.
Now it is true that the choice of the proper name tends to mature in a precise ethnic context (in southern Italy no one would suddenly start baptizing a daughter "Dragana" instead of "Diletta", even if it has basically the same meaning). But let's talk about a situation extremely permeable to other influences and influences, even in a short time or a few generations.
The indigenous people of a region, almost always for reasons of prestige or for intent to assimilate towards their rulers, can assume relatively quickly non-native forms of proper names - and therefore in turn originate surnames with non-local roots. Already the "barbarians" assimilated in the ranks of Rome in the imperial and late ancient ages bore absolutely Latin and / or Romanized names. In the Gallo-Roman world and along all the current territories of continental Europe that you mention, belonging to the Roman Empire, I believe this was almost the norm. Flavius ​​Victor, military general under Constantius II and Valens, was a Sarmatian; Aetius himself was perhaps of Gothic or Scythic stock for his father (who was still called Gaudentius!), and was only Roman / Italic for his mother.


Even the advent of Christianity has considerably renewed the heritage of onomastics, but the assumption of names of biblical-christian tradition, of apostles or prophets, does not immediately make their bearers or the surnames that derive from them Jewish or Middle Eastern.
Here too motivations of social prestige or religious devotion come into play, not infrequently combining among them: many Gothic priests of the Aryan clergy of Ravenna in the mid-sixth century have names of Jewish-Christian origin. In the same years, a lady in Como named Guntelda gave birth to a son called Basilius, a greek name like few others, perhaps exactly at the time when the Byzantines took power in Italy. But Basilius' son goes back to his name Guntio, probably because the Lombards were coming, and re-germanising the name could become more convenient. In essence, in the transition between late Antiquity and the early Middle Ages it is quite certain that whoever wore a Celtic or Germanic coinage name was not an ethnic Roman, while those who adopted Roman names could encrypt an extra-Italic origin, even a recent one (a phenomenon that continued for a long time : see again Bonifacius, Marquis of Tuscany in the middle of the 9th century, who was a Bavarian).


With the Lombards and the Franks arriving in Italy a little later, the Germanic onomastic system clears customs among us and for the same reasons, but inverse to the previous ones, the Italics who are gradually becoming Italian begin to assume names (and later surnames) of origin North European. Now the prestige comes from the new lords who came from the north, and obviously the phenomenon is more accentuated in the regions of the North and Center of the Peninsula, which were directly dominated by them. Italics with a Germanic patina, exactly like a few centuries earlier we found Celts and Germans somewhat latinized along the Rhine and Danubian limes of the Empire.

The fact that cognominal systems derived from the names of the ancient Romans persist in Central Italy doesn't surprise me: we are however talking about that area where the ethnic Romans were indigenous, so either by blood or by direct cultural irradiation it would have been impossible to supplant completely the local onomastic tradition, however courtly. (It may also be the case that we are talking about families of humble origin, but whose ancestors found themselves in the service of landowners and gentlemen from whom they borrowed the name ...).


Other times things get even more complicated. Keep in mind that sometimes the maternal line is the one that has the pre-eminence and can change the name / surname of the family irreversibly, also here almost always for reasons of greater social prestige. Our greatest poet, Dante, in the "Divine Comedy" often made reference and pride to the Roman ancestry of Florentines like him. He was a descendant by paternal line from a Tuscan / Central-Italian aristocratic family, the Elisei, but Dante's great-great-grandfather, Cacciaguida, married a lady from an equally and perhaps even more illustrious family, that one of the "Aldighieri", originally from the Po Valley, from which the descendants then took the surname. Here is another Germanic surname, which is not said to be a spy of authentic Nordic roots, for the same reasons mentioned above.


I don't want to go too far, I haven't focused on other numerous categories of surnames that have imposed themselves over the centuries. Anything is possible in this world, but thinking that ancient names and surnames may have been handed down completely unscathed without considering the heavy and complex medieval passage is at least very risky. I attach a small contribution (in Italian) by Carla Marcato who teaches at the Udine University to give an idea of ​​the extraordinary complexity of this phenomenon

https://edizionicafoscari.unive.it/media/pdf/books/978-88-6969-111-9/978-88-6969-111-9-ch-02.pdf?fbclid=IwAR0zrmc6JZ3Oo2xNAeyhZD0Lax9nI_t_WR G6Rir48VxdraipzAl8AsWn5Gk

I endings , are usually Tuscan endings ..........there are zero i endings in NE Italy in the past .........they are used later to mean many.....as an example
Ros ( popular very old surname from Ceneda ( now called Vittorio Veneto )) ....meaning Red ..............from this we got Rosso, Di Ros etc....but later got Rossi due to heritary venetian laws , which where similar to German and English laws, where the first son got everything and other sons got zero, but, in Venetian law, once the first son got his father inheritance , other siblings had to alter their surname slightly.....so as an example from a "noble" venetian family named Bon ( meaning Good )we got
Bono
Bonetto
Bonato
and many others , from siblings moving forward with their families

i endings in NE italy in the old times only meant "many" .......the Rosso families if they had many sons, where commented as the Rossi

Of course one, needs to avoid the 1870 peoples movement in Italy by the kings laws and the more volatile Mussolini displacement and moving of families in the 1920'S

torzio
09-04-20, 19:16
It seems that there is some influence of Genovese/Venetian colonies in the Black Sea shores on the surnames of Greek or Hellenized residents. A small number of surnames from the North Thrace, Eastern Thrace areas carry Italian/Latin roots, names like Tzoundas or Pinelis. Remember that the Venetian and Genovese were granted broad preferential trading privileges throughout the Byzantine Empire after one of the Crusades (4th?) and both Genoa and Venice availed themselves of those privileges.

this can help

click town for some history

http://romeartlover.tripod.com/Venezia.html

Maciamo
09-04-20, 19:22
De + surname is the French and Spanish system and applies in Italy historically, where french or Aragon/Castilian owned/ruled Italian lands ....................the correct italian system is Di for a person and Da for a place ( ie Da Vinci,....from Vinci ) ......or D'Surname, which is same as Di

Do is the portuguese system

That's not true. Apart from the example I gave with Latin names (e.g. Di Tullio), the use of "De/Di + given name" in Italian means "son of ..." (e.g. Di Martino) but this is never used in French or Spanish (Spanish use the -ez ending as in Martinez, while French just use the given name as it is, as in Martin).

What you mean is "Da + place name" as in Da Vinci, which is similar to the French or Spanish "De + place name". But that is only for non-nobility. Both French and Spanish nobility use "de + place name" with a lower case "de" (not "De"). The Italian equivalent is "di + place name" but it is rare. Most Italian noble families don't use the nobiliary particle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobiliary_particle), just like in the UK.

torzio
09-04-20, 19:36
That's not true. Apart from the example I gave with Latin names (e.g. Di Tullio), the use of "De/Di + given name" in Italian means "son of ..." (e.g. Di Martino) but this is never used in French or Spanish (Spanish use the -ez ending as in Martinez, while French just use the given name as it is, as in Martin).

What you mean is "Da + place name" as in Da Vinci, which is similar to the French or Spanish "De + place name". But that is only for non-nobility. Both French and Spanish nobility use "de + place name" with a lower case "de" (not "De"). The Italian equivalent is "di + place name" but it is rare. Most Italian noble families don't use the nobiliary particle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobiliary_particle), just like in the UK.

I looked though hundreds of BDM records in north-Italy pre 1805 and the only De is from french or spanish owned italian lands

I have Martin in old veneto lands circa 1600 , when they got "nobility" they changed to martinengo and Martinigo if they lived in Venice

I have cousins whose surname ends in "son" ..........and there are hundreds in italy with this surname. most veneti surname did not end in a vowel unless it was o

I never seen a Di + place

a typical record is .........Secco Giovanni di Paolo .................meaning...Giovanni Secco son of paolo and the di means Paolo was alive at the time ..............if Paolo was dead it would be written as Secco Giovanni fu Paolo

then we also have in BDM records Del Di ( the day ).....there is no Del Giorno

and yes...french , spanish and italian lands ruled by french and spanish used De for name and place ...no issue here

torzio
09-04-20, 20:30
Further point on Di and Da in Italy is in majority where very poor families in the past, long ago

a typical system ...........my great-great-great-grandmother was a Santolin ...........whose name came from originally Di Santo.............who when the venetians started their census of the populace after taking Treviso, Padua, Vicenza and Verona from Veneti, Swabian and Bavarian families found this from my line .........What is your name Piero , from who, Santo , do you have a surname, no .........so you are, Piero Di Santo .............your surname will be Di Santo

from this surnames evolved due to wealth , ie, if you became noble or joined a guild

Romans also had Census ( only of men of military age ) ............so a census in Italy is not new

Salento
09-04-20, 20:39
Grandma was De Vitis :)

torzio
09-04-20, 22:10
Grandma was De Vitis :)

thanks

mine where....paternal side only...............not in any order
Amadio
Manfre
Santolin
Massolin
Minatel
Miotto
Greselin
Penner
Perenthaler

and others

Cpluskx
10-04-20, 10:17
According to Gregory Clark's work on surnames, there is almost no social mobility and elites and low social class families do not change even after thousands of years. (In Japan for example Samurai descendants still run the country) The reason is probably they (different classes) usually don't mix with each other, although intrusion of a new large immigrant group into the population can change the status quo. So probably the modern elite Italian families are descendants of Ancient Patrician families.

bigsnake49
10-04-20, 16:40
Except most patrician families in Italy and elsewhere in the Roman Empire were slaughtered by the barbarian hordes.

Salento
10-04-20, 17:11
Except most patrician families in Italy and elsewhere in the Roman Empire were slaughtered by the barbarian hordes.

When we say family, it's not just one.
Think instead of an extended family with many members spread around.

The Patrician families had resources,

I'm sure many of them tried to make a deal when possible, many others went on vacation for a while :)

Angela
10-04-20, 18:25
I don't know. I can see both sides.

There is historical documentation for the absorption of some Italian elites by the Goths because they were familiar enough with Rome, and smart enough to know they didn't have the skills to run the "country". That was less the case with the Langobards, but was again the case to some extent with the Franks.

On the other hand, most of the marquesses, counts, etc. of the medieval period were or "barbarian" Germanic origin.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTKQ4o9TJj4

With the start of the Renaissance there was an upheaval in Italy, and the Germanic "Book of Gotha" aristocracy was increasingly overshadowed by up and coming bright, capable people from the middle classes like the Medici, whom no one would have called descendants of Germanics at the time. To survive, and get some of the massive wealth being produced by the merchants and bankers, the aristocracy intermarried with them, starting with the Orsini.

The Medici wound up intermarrying into the royalty of Europe, with mixed results for them imo, and maybe even for the royal families.

So, in Italy, I think the "elites" were rather "mixed" from the Renaissance on, at least, although not necessarily with descendants of patrician families, but also with members of lower classes who were becoming more and more rich and powerful.

I'm not totally sure of this, but I think the classes in Italy were more porous perhaps than in places like England or even France. There was none of the stigma of being "in trade" for example, which echoes the case in the imperial period when Senators and members of important gens were enthusiastic merchants and "manufacturers".

It's a different mindset.

torzio
10-04-20, 19:15
I agree with this renaissance mixture of families in Italy......one example are the Gonzaga family of Mantua ............clearly aiming always for a union with the Nassau house ( german ) or a French Lorraine area family
An interesting read on this is
A Renaissance Tapestry by Kate Simon

bigsnake49
10-04-20, 20:45
I think the Goths were somewhat romanized from having lived in the periphery of the empire for a long time. However the Lombards were brutal. They did not just slaughter the elite but the peasants as well.

Stuvanè
11-04-20, 17:44
@Maciamo
@Torzio

The rule that absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence always applies. On this I agree, it is obvious that surnames were born well before the provisions of the Council of Trent. However, it represents the term "post quem" from which we have a material - so to speak "official" and stable - to work on. Historians, archaeologists and scholars in general are forced to always do research with these stakes around. First it is all conjectural, but difficult to control. Even in Italy surnames - or something that could be equivalent to the surname modernly understood - appear in notarial deeds especially from the 11th century, but identifying a linearity in their assumption or transmission is an almost desperate task. The pitfalls are several.


Without going too far back in time and taking up one of the simplest and most banal cases: think of the surname of Raphael, the painter. His father is Giovanni Santi, but in various documents of 1493, relating to some payments for his services in Urbino, after a few months he was mentioned both as "Giovanni Sante" and as 'Giovanni de Sante'. It therefore seems to see that a sort of ablative of origin was adopted for the surname, with or without the particle "de". Raphael will further complicate things: re-Latinize the surname to the genitive when he signs the works ("Sancti") and it gives rise to a Latin nominative form "Sanctius", courtly I suppose, that in common Italian it will become "Sanzio". All this occurs over a generation, with a surname already taking on 4-5 variants, determined both by the use made by the same surname bearers and by the writers of the documents. I dare not think about what could happen over several generations.


Btw ... we have just seen a use of the particle "de", a blessing and a curse by scholars of documentary genealogy (it could be a sign of nobility when it is reported in minuscule, but this is not guaranteed). Bizzocchi, professor of history in Pisa, who has studied Italian anthroponymy in depth in recent years, reports that the "de" was a way of indicating a family, regardless of its nobility, in documents in Latin. But be careful: if in a document I find written "Paulus Martini", ie nominative + genitive, I have to tend to translate "Paolo di Martino"; if I find written "Paulus de Martinis", that is, nominative + plural ablative, I have to translate "Paolo Martini". This simply means that a patronymic is being transformed into a stable surname. In itself, the persistence of the "de" in a surname is indicative, but not conclusive.


The Veneto case is independent in the Italian anthroponymy, also because here there are very marked regional typing phenomena of the pre-existing Latin, and in addition it underwent an important Tuscan influence in the late Middle Ages - given by merchants and artisans who went and settled in the Northeast - and an equally important enrichment of the onomastic heritage given by the "imaginative" names, those conveyed by Franco-chivalric literature.

https://edizionicafoscari.unive.it/media/pdf/books/978-88-6969-111-9/978-88-6969-111-9-ch-07.pdf

For example, speaking of common surnames, the Latin suffix -arius indicates a relationship of dependence / connection, Bizzocchi always explains. In the Tuscan language it is normally transformed into "-aio", but in other areas such as the Veneto area the ending changes to "-aro", or to "-ier" or "-er". Here then a surname indicating a profession, that of baker (in late Latin "furnarius") becomes "Fornaro", up to the more extreme types "Fornasier" / "Fornaser". Or there are surnames that derive from the name of a profession in dialect. For example, with "Marangoni" / "Marangon" there are certainly carpenters or ax masters. (in other cases still the Latin nexus is encrypted, see the Sardinian surname "Frau" which means blacksmith, derived from the Latin "faber", locally evolved into "Frabu" / Frau ".)


In conclusion: my "caveat" lies simply in the fact that already here in Italy it becomes extremely complex to study these phenomena, because different traditions and cultural elements of secular significance merge, often asynchronous, including the different use (or familiarity ) of Latin (already highly regionalized and not very homogeneous in antiquity) and of the derivative onomastic aspects. I don't know much about what happens outside of Italy on these studies, but some more methodological shrewdness is never out of place.

https://www.ganino.com/cognomi_italiani

Maciamo
11-04-20, 19:15
@Maciamo
@Torzio

The rule that absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence always applies. On this I agree, it is obvious that surnames were born well before the provisions of the Council of Trent. However, it represents the term "post quem" from which we have a material - so to speak "official" and stable - to work on. Historians, archaeologists and scholars in general are forced to always do research with these stakes around. First it is all conjectural, but difficult to control. Even in Italy surnames - or something that could be equivalent to the surname modernly understood - appear in notarial deeds especially from the 11th century, but identifying a linearity in their assumption or transmission is an almost desperate task. The pitfalls are several.


Without going too far back in time and taking up one of the simplest and most banal cases: think of the surname of Raphael, the painter. His father is Giovanni Santi, but in various documents of 1493, relating to some payments for his services in Urbino, after a few months he was mentioned both as "Giovanni Sante" and as 'Giovanni de Sante'. It therefore seems to see that a sort of ablative of origin was adopted for the surname, with or without the particle "de". Raphael will further complicate things: re-Latinize the surname to the genitive when he signs the works ("Sancti") and it gives rise to a Latin nominative form "Sanctius", courtly I suppose, that in common Italian it will become "Sanzio". All this occurs over a generation, with a surname already taking on 4-5 variants, determined both by the use made by the same surname bearers and by the writers of the documents. I dare not think about what could happen over several generations.


Thank you for the explanations. I have also read several books about the etymology of surnames. In my genealogical research I have also seen several variants of the same surname, either for the same individual or between generations. In some older documents names are often Latinised. It doesn't really matter as we can always recognise the surname. What you explained is something that most genealogists who have dealt with medieval or Renaissance documents know from experience. This is why I have taken into account lots of names that could be heavily corrupted over time, and by the change of languages in one region. When I see a name like Cloudt in Dutch it makes me immediately think of a corruption of Claude or Claudius. When I see the name Cole in England of Kohlmann in Germany, my mind automatically translates it to Carbo in Latin. If I encounter French names like Pinard or Surville, I know instinctively (as a French speaker) that they could very well be the corrupted French rendering of Pinarius or Servilius by comparing how common Latin words evolved into modern French.

The biggest obstacle is not a linguistic one. Even if we can find strong linguistic evidence linking an ancient Latin surname to a modern one, we cannot know if wives have always been faithful over the last 30 or 40 generations. This is true even for recent genealogy. Infidelity could happen at any generation. It's hard to determine the rate of non-paternity events because of many factors, among which:

- It depends on the socio-economic class and culture (e.g. whether marriages are arranged or free)
- The rate is probably higher in cities (more opportunities) than in the countryside.
- Infidelity is probably less common among very religious Christians.
- It depends on people's personality (sociability, openness to new experiences, level of natural anxiety, etc.), which is partially hereditary, so that some lineages may suffer less infidelities than others.

30 or 40 generations gives ample time for a lineage to be affected by a non-paternity event. But not necessarily all lineages. Some lineages will have many and others none. What's more, in a family with many children the chance of a non-paternity event affecting more than one child is already much lower, and falls to almost zero when all the children are considered. That's why there will always be some lines that keep the original Y-DNA line, and inevitably some that get cuckolded.

I found about 1% of surnames belonging to Italic/Latin/Roman Y-DNA with names that could be inherited from Roman gentes. That's not a lot, but I didn't expect much more considering the potential non-paternity events, adoptions, etc. over 1500 to 2000 years. Then, even among the list I made above I expect that many will be wrong. Much more samples are needed. Once several samples consistently show the exact same deep clade matching the same surname (or a related cognomen), then we can be more confident that a ancient gens belonged to that haplogroup. What I am doing here is just preliminary work that will need to be expanded and refined over time.

Maciamo
11-04-20, 19:35
Here a summary table of the Roman nomina and their presumed haplogroups. The patrician gentes are in bold.



Gens
Origin
Presumed haplogroup


*Quinctia
Alban
G2a-L497>Z1816


Cantia

G2a-L497>Z1816


Coelia/Caelia
Etruscan
G2a-L497>Z1816


Cordia

G2a-L497>Z1816


Papinia

G2a-L497>Z1816


Precia

G2a-L497>Z1816


Statia

G2a-L497>Z1816


Papia
Samnite
G2a-U1>L1264


Floria

G2a-U1>L13


Hordeonia

G2a-U1>L13


Lemonia

G2a-U1>L13


Orbilia

J2a-L70


Tiberiana

J2a-L70


Aulia

J2a-Z438


Licinia
Etruscan?
J2a-Z438


Lucia

J2a-Z438


Decimia
Samnite
J2b


Matia

J2b2-L283>Z38241


Flaminia
Roman?
R1b-L51>L151>CTS4528


Cilnia
Etruscan
R1b-L51>L151>CTS4528


*Cominia
Aurunci?
R1b-L51>Z2118


*Junia
Roman
R1b-L51>Z2118


*Cornelia
Roman
R1b-U152>L2>ZZ56


*Claudia
Sabine
R1b-U152>Z193


*Marcia
Sabine
R1b-U152>Z193


*Papiria
Alban
R1b-U152>Z193


*Pinaria
Sabine
R1b-U152>Z193


*Postumia
Roman
R1b-U152>Z193


*Valeria
Sabine
R1b-U152>Z193


Aelia
Roman?
R1b-U152>Z193


Hortensia
Roman?
R1b-U152>Z193


Hostia

R1b-U152>Z193


Pomponia
Sabine
R1b-U152>Z193


Rania
Sabine
R1b-U152>Z193


Caninia
Tusculum
R1b-U152>Z56>Z43>S1523>BY38816


Antia
Roman?
R1b-U152>Z56>Z43>BY3544


Suetonia

R1b-U152>Z56>Z43>BY3544


*Servilia
Alban
R1b-U152>Z56>Z43>S47>S4634


Plinia

R1b-U152>Z56>Z43>S47>S4634


Caecinia
Etruscan
R1b-U152>Z56>Z43>Z145>CTS6389


Campatia

R1b-U152>Z56>Z43>Z145>PF6577



Out of the 10 patrician gentes listed so far, 8 presumably belong to R1b-U152, one to R1b-Z2118 and one to G2a-L497>Z1816, which I had long predicted to be Celto-Italic and closely linked historically to the propagation of R1b-U152. So there is consistency with what the expected Y-DNA lineages of Italic people. But it is even more remarkable that the 6 families of Sabine origin (4 patrician and 2 plebeian) all belong to R1b-U152>Z193 !

Also consistently, all the J2a-L70 and J2b2 surnames that I could potentially match to Roman gentes belong to minor gentes, except the gens Licinia, an originally obscure plebeian gens which rose to prominence in the late Republic.

torzio
11-04-20, 19:44
@Maciamo
@Torzio


For example, speaking of common surnames, the Latin suffix -arius indicates a relationship of dependence / connection, Bizzocchi always explains. In the Tuscan language it is normally transformed into "-aio", but in other areas such as the Veneto area the ending changes to "-aro", or to "-ier" or "-er". Here then a surname indicating a profession, that of baker (in late Latin "furnarius") becomes "Fornaro", up to the more extreme types "Fornasier" / "Fornaser". Or there are surnames that derive from the name of a profession in dialect. For example, with "Marangoni" / "Marangon" there are certainly carpenters or ax masters. (in other cases still the Latin nexus is encrypted, see the Sardinian surname "Frau" which means blacksmith, derived from the Latin "faber", locally evolved into "Frabu" / Frau ".)


In conclusion: my "caveat" lies simply in the fact that already here in Italy it becomes extremely complex to study these phenomena, because different traditions and cultural elements of secular significance merge, often asynchronous, including the different use (or familiarity ) of Latin (already highly regionalized and not very homogeneous in antiquity) and of the derivative onomastic aspects. I don't know much about what happens outside of Italy on these studies, but some more methodological shrewdness is never out of place.



I agree

other Surnames from professions
Sartor = Tailor
Moecan = crab catcher from the word for crab, Moeca

then there are christian names which became surnames
Zorzi = from the christian name for Giorgio, George
Polo = from Paolo
Zane = from Giovanni

torzio
11-04-20, 19:54
Here a summary table of the Roman nomina and their presumed haplogroups. The patrician gentes are in bold.



Gens
Origin
Haplogroup


Quinctia
Alban
G2a-L497>Z1816


Cantia

G2a-L497>Z1816


Coelia/Caelia
Etruscan
G2a-L497>Z1816


Cordia

G2a-L497>Z1816


Papinia

G2a-L497>Z1816


Precia

G2a-L497>Z1816


Statia

G2a-L497>Z1816


Papia
Samnite
G2a-U1>L1264


Floria

G2a-U1>L13


Hordeonia

G2a-U1>L13


Lemonia

G2a-U1>L13


Orbilia

J2a-L70


Tiberiana

J2a-L70


Aulia

J2a-Z438


Licinia
Etruscan?
J2a-Z438


Lucia

J2a-Z438


Decimia
Samnite
J2b


Matia

J2b2-L283>Z38241


Cornelia
Roman
R1b-L2>ZZ56


Cominia
Aurunci?
R1b-L51>Z2118


Caninia
Tusculum
R1b-S1523>BY38816


Caecinia
Etruscan
R1b-Z145>CTS6389


Campatia

R1b-Z145>PF6577


Claudia
Sabine
R1b-Z193


Marcia
Sabine
R1b-Z193


Papiria
Alban
R1b-Z193


Pinaria
Sabine
R1b-Z193


Postumia
Roman
R1b-Z193


Valeria
Sabine
R1b-Z193


Hortensia
Roman?
R1b-Z193


Hostia

R1b-Z193


Pomponia
Sabine
R1b-Z193


Rania
Sabine
R1b-Z193


Servilia
Alban
R1b-Z43>S47>S4634


Plinia

R1b-Z43>S47>S4634



Out of the 10 patrician gentes listed so far, 8 presumably belong to R1b-U152, one to R1b-Z2118 and one to G2a-L497>Z1816, which I had long predicted to be Celto-Italic and closely linked historically to the propagation of R1b-U152. So there is consistency with what the expected Y-DNA lineages of Italic people. But it is even more remarkable that the 6 families of Sabine origin (4 patrician and 2 plebeian) all belong to R1b-U152>Z193 !

Also consistently, all the J2a-L70 and J2b2 surnames that I could potentially match to Roman gentes belong to minor gentes, except the gens Licinia, an originally obscure plebeian gens which rose to prominence in the late Republic.

I presented this before ............a paper which goes into detail about G2a-L497 clearly states it is a tyrolese and coastal northern romanian marker ............a very high % has this marker

https://www.fsigenetics.com/article/S1872-4973%2813%2900136-1/fulltext

Clearly this marker entered Italy via Raetia e Vindelicia lands

kmak
12-04-20, 02:52
Here a summary table of the Roman nomina and their presumed haplogroups. The patrician gentes are in bold.



Gens
Origin
Haplogroup


Quinctia
Alban
G2a-L497>Z1816


Cantia

G2a-L497>Z1816


Coelia/Caelia
Etruscan
G2a-L497>Z1816


Cordia

G2a-L497>Z1816


Papinia

G2a-L497>Z1816


Precia

G2a-L497>Z1816


Statia

G2a-L497>Z1816


Papia
Samnite
G2a-U1>L1264


Floria

G2a-U1>L13


Hordeonia

G2a-U1>L13


Lemonia

G2a-U1>L13


Orbilia

J2a-L70


Tiberiana

J2a-L70


Aulia

J2a-Z438


Licinia
Etruscan?
J2a-Z438


Lucia

J2a-Z438


Decimia
Samnite
J2b


Matia

J2b2-L283>Z38241


Cornelia
Roman
R1b-L2>ZZ56


Cominia
Aurunci?
R1b-L51>Z2118


Caninia
Tusculum
R1b-S1523>BY38816


Caecinia
Etruscan
R1b-Z145>CTS6389


Campatia

R1b-Z145>PF6577


Claudia
Sabine
R1b-Z193


Marcia
Sabine
R1b-Z193


Papiria
Alban
R1b-Z193


Pinaria
Sabine
R1b-Z193


Postumia
Roman
R1b-Z193


Valeria
Sabine
R1b-Z193


Hortensia
Roman?
R1b-Z193


Hostia

R1b-Z193


Pomponia
Sabine
R1b-Z193


Rania
Sabine
R1b-Z193


Servilia
Alban
R1b-Z43>S47>S4634


Plinia

R1b-Z43>S47>S4634



Out of the 10 patrician gentes listed so far, 8 presumably belong to R1b-U152, one to R1b-Z2118 and one to G2a-L497>Z1816, which I had long predicted to be Celto-Italic and closely linked historically to the propagation of R1b-U152. So there is consistency with what the expected Y-DNA lineages of Italic people. But it is even more remarkable that the 6 families of Sabine origin (4 patrician and 2 plebeian) all belong to R1b-U152>Z193 !

Also consistently, all the J2a-L70 and J2b2 surnames that I could potentially match to Roman gentes belong to minor gentes, except the gens Licinia, an originally obscure plebeian gens which rose to prominence in the late Republic.

I wonder Y DNA of Lucius Junius Brutus founder of Roman Republic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucius_Junius_Brutus

Joey37
12-04-20, 03:22
Wow, that's a lot of G2. Especially compared to the J2, whose spread in north-western Europe is often attributed to Romans.

dominique_nuit
12-04-20, 04:06
There doesn’t appear to be any G2a-CTS342 among the original Romans? Only U1 and L497 ?

Also, perhaps a question for Torzio, but what does “La” prefix mean in southern Italian surnames, in particular Calabrian? I recall reading that it’s a fairly recent innovation.

torzio
12-04-20, 04:39
There doesn’t appear to be any G2a-CTS342 among the original Romans? Only U1 and L497 ?

Also, perhaps a question for Torzio, but what does “La” prefix mean in southern Italian surnames, in particular Calabrian? I recall reading that it’s a fairly recent innovation.

La = The

example ...La Russa means the Red ( could be a red headed woman )...........but it is mostly created for women without a husband ( single women with child in the early days when surnames where introduced) ..............in the North , more common is Dalla instead of La

La, In the south , it was also used as an orphan dropped/abandoned off at the church by the mother..........in the north it was Del Pio ..............or under Venice it was Del Pio Luogo

In the north ( medieval times ) it was also used for foreigners giving them an Italian surname .....like, the family named Scaliger, the german rulers of Verona....where called La Scala by italians ( artificial made up name )

Maciamo
12-04-20, 10:00
Wow, that's a lot of G2. Especially compared to the J2, whose spread in north-western Europe is often attributed to Romans.

That's because J2a was not one of the original Indo-European haplogroup in the founding Italic population of the ancient Romans. J2a was presumably assimilated from neighbouring Etruscan and Greek populations. By the time the Romans conquered Gaul and Britain there would have been many J2a men among the Romans (be them legionaries, administrators or merchants).

Maciamo
12-04-20, 10:39
I wonder Y DNA of Lucius Junius Brutus founder of Roman Republic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucius_Junius_Brutus

I couldn't find any modern surname sounding like Junius (June, Juny?) in the FTNDA projects. But while looking for the existence of a anglicised form of Brutus, I found that the surname Brute exists in Britain (https://www.surnamemap.eu/unitedkingdom/index.php?sur=BRUTE&s=Search) at the border of England and Wales. Brutus could also have become Bruto in late Latin, then Bruton in English, and that name also exists (https://www.surnamemap.eu/unitedkingdom/index.php?sur=BRUTON&s=Search) and is more common. Better still, there is a FTDNA project (https://www.familytreedna.com/public/BrutonBrewtonDNAStudy?iframe=yresults)! 70 of the 72 members are R1b. Few tested for deep clades, but among those who did, several belong to R1b-L51>Z2118 (aka PF7589). Two individuals from Cheshire (around the major Roman town of Deva Victrix (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deva_Victrix), aka modern Chester) share the common deep clade is Y40983, which was formed 1150 years ago and descend from a single ancestor 450 years ago. That's for the British Bruton individuals. If we go up the phylogenetic tree, we find that the common ancestor in Roman times they would have carried the SNP Y5141 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Y5141/) (TMRCA 2300 years) and outside Britain this clade is found only in Italy! Bingo!

So based on this evidence, it seems possible that the Brutti belong to R1b-L51>Z2118>Z2116>Y5149>Y5141. Since, as far as I know, Brutus is a cognomen only found in the gens Junia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brutus_(cognomen)), it is indeed possible that Lucius Junius Brutus belonged to that clade too. To confirm this it would be good to find other surnames derived from Junius or one of the cognomina linked to that gens (Brutus, Bubulcus, Pera, Pennus, Silanus, Blaesus, Rusticus) and see if they also belong to that clade. Many variants of Junius exist in England (June, Junes, Juny) but are all rare and I couldn't find any Y-DNA project. Over time some Junes might have become Jones as people tend to change unfamiliar names into familiar ones. However the vast majority of Jones belong to the Celtic R1b-L21 and so far I haven't found any Jones who were R1b-Z2118.

Ahmed
12-04-20, 12:07
Here a summary table of the Roman nomina and their presumed haplogroups. The patrician gentes are in bold.



Gens
Origin
Haplogroup


Quinctia
Alban
G2a-L497>Z1816


Cantia

G2a-L497>Z1816


Coelia/Caelia
Etruscan
G2a-L497>Z1816


Cordia

G2a-L497>Z1816


Papinia

G2a-L497>Z1816


Precia

G2a-L497>Z1816


Statia

G2a-L497>Z1816


Papia
Samnite
G2a-U1>L1264


Floria

G2a-U1>L13


Hordeonia

G2a-U1>L13


Lemonia

G2a-U1>L13


Orbilia

J2a-L70


Tiberiana

J2a-L70


Aulia

J2a-Z438


Licinia
Etruscan?
J2a-Z438


Lucia

J2a-Z438


Decimia
Samnite
J2b


Matia

J2b2-L283>Z38241


Cornelia
Roman
R1b-L2>ZZ56


Cominia
Aurunci?
R1b-L51>Z2118


Caninia
Tusculum
R1b-S1523>BY38816


Caecinia
Etruscan
R1b-Z145>CTS6389


Campatia

R1b-Z145>PF6577


Claudia
Sabine
R1b-Z193


Marcia
Sabine
R1b-Z193


Papiria
Alban
R1b-Z193


Pinaria
Sabine
R1b-Z193


Postumia
Roman
R1b-Z193


Valeria
Sabine
R1b-Z193


Hortensia
Roman?
R1b-Z193


Hostia

R1b-Z193


Pomponia
Sabine
R1b-Z193


Rania
Sabine
R1b-Z193


Servilia
Alban
R1b-Z43>S47>S4634


Plinia

R1b-Z43>S47>S4634



Out of the 10 patrician gentes listed so far, 8 presumably belong to R1b-U152, one to R1b-Z2118 and one to G2a-L497>Z1816, which I had long predicted to be Celto-Italic and closely linked historically to the propagation of R1b-U152. So there is consistency with what the expected Y-DNA lineages of Italic people. But it is even more remarkable that the 6 families of Sabine origin (4 patrician and 2 plebeian) all belong to R1b-U152>Z193 !

Also consistently, all the J2a-L70 and J2b2 surnames that I could potentially match to Roman gentes belong to minor gentes, except the gens Licinia, an originally obscure plebeian gens which rose to prominence in the late Republic.
This is interesting. Could you please advise if these results are shared in any DNA website or it can be compared to Big y results to find matches. Thanks

Maciamo
12-04-20, 12:49
Here is another branch of R1b that I haven't investigated yet.

R1b-L51>L151>S1200 (CTS4528)



​Flaming (Prussia/Poland) + Fleming (UK) => both could derive from the gens Flaminia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flaminia_(gens)).
Kellum (unknown origin but surname exist in England, though very rare) => maybe from Chilo, a cognomen of the gens Flaminia above.
Aker (England)=> from the cognomen Acer? (found notably in the gens Sedatia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedatia_(gens)) of Gallic origin)
Kienle (Germany) => possibly a corruption of Cilnia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cilnia_(gens)) (to Cilne => Cinle => Kienle), an Etruscan gens
Marcelis (Netherlands) + Merkel (Germany) => possible corruption of Marcellus, a cognomen of the gens Claudia and Quinctia, among others.
Carnley (North Midlands, England) => possibly a corruption of Cornelius (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornelia_(gens))
Suhre (Rhineland, Germany) => from the cognomen Sura (found in the gens Cornelia and Licinia)


Note that Carnley and Suhre both fall under the same deep clade S1200>S14328>BY62339 so that clade is another potential candidate for the gens Cornelia.

Salento
12-04-20, 15:05
Here is another branch of R1b that I haven't investigated yet.

R1b-L51>L151>S1200 (CTS4528)



​Flaming (Prussia/Poland) + Fleming (UK) => both could derive from the gens Flaminia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flaminia_(gens)).
Kellum (unknown origin but surname exist in England, though very rare) => maybe from Chilo, a cognomen of the gens Flaminia above.
Aker (England)=> from the cognomen Acer? (found notably in the gens Sedatia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedatia_(gens)) of Gallic origin)
Kienle (Germany) => possibly a corruption from Cilnia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cilnia_(gens)) (to Cilne => Cinle => Kienle), an Etruscan gens
Marcelis (Netherlands) + Merkel (Germany) => possible corruption of Marcellus, a cognomen of the gens Claudia and Quinctia, among others.



There are also Johnson’s with that Haplogroup (R-CTS4528).

Some came to the USA from Cornwall to Boston MA area in about 1626 AD :)

https://i.imgur.com/tQeIm4C.jpg

Angela
12-04-20, 15:33
There are also Johnson’s with that Haplogroup (R-CTS4528).

Some came to the USA from Cornwall to Boston MA area in about 1626 AD :)

https://i.imgur.com/tQeIm4C.jpg

I don't know if he belonged to that particular sub-lineage, but wasn't U.S. President Lyndon Johnson U-152?

Maciamo
12-04-20, 15:54
I don't know if he belonged to that particular sub-lineage, but wasn't U.S. President Lyndon Johnson U-152?

No, he was E-V13 (https://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_E1b1b_Y-DNA.shtml#famous_people).

Maciamo
12-04-20, 15:56
There are also Johnson’s with that Haplogroup (R-CTS4528).

Some came to the USA from Cornwall to Boston MA area in about 1626 AD :)


There are hundreds of people who are R-CTS4528. What's your point? Why should Johnson be a Roman name?

Salento
12-04-20, 16:40
There are hundreds of people who are R-CTS4528. What's your point? Why should Johnson be a Roman name?

I never said that !

The point is: if R-CTS4528 is Roman related, it was also in Cornwall in the 1600s.

Despite the fact that LivingDNA doesn't believe there's much Roman genetic evidence in England.

People can make of that information what they want, there are many Johnson’s out there.

Juan.delajara
13-04-20, 00:32
Very interesting Maciamo. Regarding gens Licinia, there is an interesting tradition regarding the Moreno surname origin, Julio Atienza, a well known genealogist in Spain, stated that the Moreno's descends from Lucius Licinus Murena. The fact is that, at least one spanish Moreno on FTDNA is PF5456, a subclade of JL-70s.
In my own case, my original surname was Martínez de la Jara (patronymic-toponymic surname), the patronymic, as you've said comes from Martinus, from latin god Mars, I belong to a subclade of PF5456. Regards

Regio X
13-04-20, 04:44
I presented this before ............a paper which goes into detail about G2a-L497 clearly states it is a tyrolese and coastal northern romanian marker ............a very high % has this marker

https://www.fsigenetics.com/article/S1872-4973%2813%2900136-1/fulltext

Clearly this marker entered Italy via Raetia e Vindelicia landsPerhaps it entered through there (especially G-L43), perhaps not. By the way, G-L497 predates well Rhaetians and Etruscans, as you know. Anyway, I do agree that it could be among them, in the case it's what you're suggesting. But if you want my opinion, this paper is 7 years old, and it looks outdated in some aspects.
It provides a coalescent time of 13.900 years with standard error of 3.300 for East Tyrol!!
I'm not sure, either, that those age estimations based on STR markers "necessarily" means per se that the clade did originate (or expanded from) there. The following comes from the (much more recent) paper "Prehistoric migrations through the Mediterranean basin shaped Corsican Y-chromosome diversity" (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ar...l.pone.0200641), just as an example: "Fifteen out of the 17 Corsican G2a2b2a1a1b-L497 displayed a unique Y-STR profile (S4 Table) with an estimated TMRCA of 6867 +/- 1294 years." Do we think that G-L497 arrived in Corsica abt. 7000 years ago? Likely not.
I actually think this TMRCA based on STRs is not even accurate. I mean, if the results are correct and I checked them right, all these Corsican G-L497 men would have Y-GATA-H4=12, and sixteen out 17 would have DYS461=10, two results uncommon among G-L497 men. What a coincidence it would be. :) But no. It may actually evidence low diversity: the Corsican men involved would form together a branch not "that" old.

Well, G-L497 does have a relatively high frequency around that part of Alps and surroundings, apparently, and Berger's map catched up that, as others - including Eupedia's. However, I'm affraid G-L497 highest SNP diversities would be somewhere else, and even the STR diversities suggested in the paper "Reconstructing the genetic history of Italians: new insights from a male (Y-chromosome) perspective" don't falsify this notion.

Angela
13-04-20, 23:42
Perhaps it entered through there (especially G-L43), perhaps not. By the way, G-L497 predates well Rhaetians and Etruscans, as you know. Anyway, I do agree that it could be among them, in the case it's what you're suggesting. But if you want my opinion, this paper is 7 years old, and it looks outdated in some aspects.
It provides a coalescent time of 13.900 years with standard error of 3.300 for East Tyrol!!
I'm not sure, either, that those age estimations based on STR markers "necessarily" means per se that the clade did originate (or expanded from) there. The following comes from the (much more recent) paper "Prehistoric migrations through the Mediterranean basin shaped Corsican Y-chromosome diversity" (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ar...l.pone.0200641), just as an example: "Fifteen out of the 17 Corsican G2a2b2a1a1b-L497 displayed a unique Y-STR profile (S4 Table) with an estimated TMRCA of 6867 +/- 1294 years." Do we think that G-L497 arrived in Corsica abt. 7000 years ago? Likely not.
I actually think this TMRCA based on STRs is not even accurate. I mean, if the results are correct and I checked them right, all these Corsican G-L497 men would have Y-GATA-H4=12, and sixteen out 17 would have DYS461=10, two results uncommon among G-L497 men. What a coincidence it would be. :) But no. It may actually evidence low diversity: the Corsican men involved would form together a branch not "that" old.

Well, G-L497 does have a relatively high frequency around that part of Alps and surroundings, apparently, and Berger's map catched up that, as others - including Eupedia's. However, I'm affraid G-L497 highest SNP diversities would be somewhere else, and even the STR diversities suggested in the paper "Reconstructing the genetic history of Italians: new insights from a male (Y-chromosome) perspective" don't falsify this notion.


Excellent information. Thanks, Regio.

torzio
14-04-20, 01:30
Perhaps it entered through there (especially G-L43), perhaps not. By the way, G-L497 predates well Rhaetians and Etruscans, as you know. Anyway, I do agree that it could be among them, in the case it's what you're suggesting. But if you want my opinion, this paper is 7 years old, and it looks outdated in some aspects.
It provides a coalescent time of 13.900 years with standard error of 3.300 for East Tyrol!!
I'm not sure, either, that those age estimations based on STR markers "necessarily" means per se that the clade did originate (or expanded from) there. The following comes from the (much more recent) paper "Prehistoric migrations through the Mediterranean basin shaped Corsican Y-chromosome diversity" (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ar...l.pone.0200641), just as an example: "Fifteen out of the 17 Corsican G2a2b2a1a1b-L497 displayed a unique Y-STR profile (S4 Table) with an estimated TMRCA of 6867 +/- 1294 years." Do we think that G-L497 arrived in Corsica abt. 7000 years ago? Likely not.
I actually think this TMRCA based on STRs is not even accurate. I mean, if the results are correct and I checked them right, all these Corsican G-L497 men would have Y-GATA-H4=12, and sixteen out 17 would have DYS461=10, two results uncommon among G-L497 men. What a coincidence it would be. :) But no. It may actually evidence low diversity: the Corsican men involved would form together a branch not "that" old.
Well, G-L497 does have a relatively high frequency around that part of Alps and surroundings, apparently, and Berger's map catched up that, as others - including Eupedia's. However, I'm affraid G-L497 highest SNP diversities would be somewhere else, and even the STR diversities suggested in the paper "Reconstructing the genetic history of Italians: new insights from a male (Y-chromosome) perspective" don't falsify this notion.


Its highest diversities are in northern Romania/Moldova area

Regio X
14-04-20, 03:30
Its highest diversities are in northern Romania/Moldova areaThere is some frequency in there, but I'm affraid the evidences are of low diversity in the East, actually. G-L42, for example, is the most frequent in Balkan as a whole, but most of them by far belong to G-Y128028. The major expansion would have happened from an area more to the West, probably not far from those where STR diversities supposedly peak. Where the MRCA lived may be another story, at least according to ancient DNA.

https://i.imgur.com/C1GHUF3.gif

torzio
14-04-20, 19:59
There is some frequency in there, but I'm affraid the evidences are of low diversity in the East, actually. G-L42, for example, is the most frequent in Balkan as a whole, but most of them by far belong to G-Y128028. The major expansion would have happened from an area more to the West, probably not far from those where STR diversities supposedly peak. Where the MRCA lived may be another story, at least according to ancient DNA.

https://i.imgur.com/C1GHUF3.gif


The paper I presented, regardless that is is 7 yo , states that L497 is 78% of the G2a in the Tyrol-Austria/Italy

kmak
25-04-20, 02:20
Roman emperors have a grave? Their Y DNA is detected in the graves?

Angela
25-04-20, 04:33
Roman emperors have a grave? Their Y DNA is detected in the graves?

No, they don't. It's impossible to know.

Odds are, imo, they were R1b U-152 of some kind.