New map of R1b-S28 (U152)

[MOESAN]

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

 

[spongetaro]

U152.org also favors the Ligurian origin of R1b U152:

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

 

[Vallicanus]

U152.org also favors the Ligurian origin of R1b U152:

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

 

[corinth]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[corinth]

U152.org also favors the Ligurian origin of R1b U152:

"the best representation"
"probably"

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Vallicanus]

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

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

That will not change.

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

 

[R.Rocca]

"the best representation"
"probably"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[corinth]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Vallicanus]

Can you not understand the map in the U-152.org site? Expand the map to see the local detail more clearly.

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

It DECREASES eastwards in both northern and central Italy.

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

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

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

 

[MOESAN]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[zanipolo]

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

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

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

 

[MOESAN]

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

 

[Taranis]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[sparkey]

I admit it's a bit weird to talk about "sister clades" when talking Y-DNA

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

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

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

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

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

Mikewww has pointed to proof that R1b-S116's subclades began to expand quite shortly after its TMRCA. There is little difference between them. And U106 fits right in there with them, as you indicate.

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

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

 

[corinth]

Mikewww has pointed to proof that R1b-S116's subclades began to expand quite shortly after its TMRCA. There is little difference between them. And U106 fits right in there with them, as you indicate.

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

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

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

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

 

[Vallicanus]

So there we have it according to Corinth.

Bashkirs and Lombards had a common origin.

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

 

[Mikewww]

Mikewww has pointed to proof that R1b-S116's subclades began to expand quite shortly after its TMRCA. There is little difference between them. And U106 fits right in there with them, as you indicate.

I think the R1b-L11/S127 family, including P312/S116 and U106/S21 expanded rapidly and at about the same time across Europe, but I can hardly say I've proven anything... just provided some evidence.

except for the fact that we do in fact have U-152 far to the east, in Bashkortostan and there is no evidence or historical record to show that it is a alien introduction as opposed to the remnant of a indigenous overrun population, as the region fell to asiatics.

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

Thus we can show that U-152 has the potential to be far outside the scope of the confines that Mikewww has posited.

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

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

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

 

[sparkey]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[R.Rocca]

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

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

 

[corinth]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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