New map of R1b-S28 (U152)

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

The discussion arose due to the question of ...who where the germanic celts and where the germanic celts
 
Dorians are connected with Iron age not Bronze, their estimation time is 900 BC and not 1200,

The Late Bronze Age continued until 1000BC in the Balkans and ended a little later around 750BC in central Europe. The sudden changes in Greece and archaeological evidence from the period just before the introduction of iron technology in the Balkans suggests that the migration began entering the Balkans around 1200BC. Once they had established themselves in the Balkans they founded iron technology in the Balkans. It is for this reason that they have been associated with the Iron Age. This new technology would only reach central Europe from the Balkans in around 750BC.
 
Not entirely correct, U106 has been found on Crete in the Lasithi population, although significant as it supports evidence for a Bronze Age migration into the Balkans, I would prefer a few more Greek U106 results.

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

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


makes no sense, south italy has 0.8% U106.

your figures above should show 5.7% for average in Italy

see u106 thread
 
best to direct you u106 issues to the u106 thread

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

Well done!:rolleyes:
 
makes no sense, south italy has 0.8% U106. your figures above should show 5.7% for average in Italy

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

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

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

I did not say 5.7% of Southern Italy I said 5.9% of the R1b in South Italy which is what Maciamo indicates on his distribution map.:bored:
 
The discussion arose due to the question of ...who where the germanic celts and where the germanic celts

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

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

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

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

*Germania as perceived by the Romans, that is the lands north of the Danube and east of the Rhine
 
Haplogroup-R1b-S28.gif


The higher frequencies along the Danube running to the Black Sea is what I'm referring to when I think about the origin of the Dorian migration into the South Balkans from the North (c.1200BC).
 
How can something be 0.8% of U106, you probably mean 0.8% of the entire South Italian pop.?

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

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

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

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

These percentages are from December 2010

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

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

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

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

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

The initial discussion revolved around .........did the Hallstatt and La-Tene cultures evolve from the Gallic-celts which where U152 predominently or was U106 also involved.
Since U106 bavarians "migrated" into eastern austria and U106 was originally further north ( bascially north sea ) , then we can say that the Hallstatt and La-Tene cultures where purely gallic and maybe also predomintly u152.
 
what ? ..........you where talking about U106, below is the december 2010 figures for U106. As you will see, it says 0.8% for south Italy.

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


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

Myres and Cruciani studies 2010

37.1% is U152
11.9% is U106

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

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

This is my last post on this matter as I do not know what you are aiming for
 
Hi Macimo,
I think you must correct the map of Scotland.
In the western lowlands there is the greatest value for R1b-U152 for the United Kingdom.
Source: www.u152.org
 
It is true that the total R1b is even higher in Lombardy and Trentino, but that is because the Lombards settled Alpine Italy and brought a lot of R1b-S21 (and some L21) with them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Given that the central, most concentrated population of U-152 in Europe are pretty unique in that the very province in which U-152 becomes the supermajority of the population (along with Corsica- also Gothic / eastern germanic settled) is literally named after a Elbe Germanic Tribal confederation is frankly the first place one has to look to explain the ubiquitous U-152 in that locale.
 
I don't believe in massive replacements of population - I do think Lombards in North Italy mixed with Celtic previous occupants (not at the beginning, surely, the keeped the better lands, but after - In different places we see previous vanquished population growing numerous enough again and crossing (East England after the Saxons, preceltic or pre-beakers populations in some places of France...) we are speaking about PRESENT DAY populations after all and other events took place as local emigrations, erasing of previous ethnic barriers... - for Y-G I assume they reminded with strong %s in higland regions of Germany (retaining for a while different cultural traits) and that they was of no weight in the big germanic movements - the other Y-Gs we see in Northern Europe could be associated for a part to Alani people - That Y-R-U152 could be present among last Western Germanic tribes is not absurd at all (see Western Poland and possible Urnfield influence there) but I do not think it could explain the huge presence in Corsica and N-Italy -
we are obliged to do hypothesis in absence of ancient DNA, it is true: but common sense is necessary when speaking about numerous populations and their collective movings
 
I don't believe in massive replacements of population - I do think Lombards in North Italy mixed with Celtic previous occupants (not at the beginning, surely, the keeped the better lands, but after - In different places we see previous vanquished population growing numerous enough again and crossing (East England after the Saxons, preceltic or pre-beakers populations in some places of France...)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A lot of people are in my opinion disinclined or resistive to such a consideration because they may have already attributed U-152 as "italo-celtic", "belgic", gaulish, etc.. and to accept that this may in fact be the result of Lombardic genetic introgression disturbs these earlier assessments. In any event, I appreciate your response, forum and thoughts on this matter.
 
Is this Corinth for real with his outlandish reading of the evidence?:confused:
 
As per your comments in post # 79 , below are the numbers of the 49% of R1b in Italy Myres and Cruciani studies 2010 37.1% is U152 11.9% is U106 Of the 37.1% U152 in North italy = 72% U152 in Central Italy = 18% U152 in South Italy = 10% Of the 11.9% U106 in North italy = 79.8% U106 in Central Italy = 15% U106 in South Italy = 5.2% This is my last post on this matter as I do not know what you are aiming for
sorry, these percentages are surely correct but they don't make any sense (for me, a break down of my brain? joke) what matters is 1- the absolute %s of every SNP compared to the total population of EVERY region 2- the relative %s of every SNP within the R1b "population" of EVERY region the cifers above says nothing to us, only the global heavier weight of R1b in North Italy
 

This thread has been viewed 169183 times.

Back
Top