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

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

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

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

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

As we say here in Italy: "to each his own!"; better if a greek care about greek history and italian care about italian history.
Anyway, go di Professor Cavalli-Sforza and say to him that the history lessons of "studio della cognomistica applicata alla Storia romana: il cognome è nel DNA" it was wrong becouse romans don't have surname, and tell to him that my history preparation is half :giggle:
 
Another example: Lucius Albinius Paterculus, plebs tribunes who come to a farmer family (he's father whose a farmer from a little city near Rome).
I write in english, not in latin for avoid misunderstandings

Prename: Lucius (our really name)

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

Nikname: Paterculus.

We know that the grandfather of Lucius had as "nomen" (and so a surname) Albino, we know this because the people of Rome, first to elect a man "tribune of plebs" conducted painstaking research among he's relatives to prevent it was a patrician "disguised" as plebeian.
 
As we say here in Italy: "to each his own!"; better if a greek care about greek history and italian care about italian history.
Anyway, go di Professor Cavalli-Sforza and say to him that the history lessons of "studio della cognomistica applicata alla Storia romana: il cognome è nel DNA" it was wrong becouse romans don't have surname, and tell to him that my history preparation is half :giggle:

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

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

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

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

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

Surnames as we have today came into very limited use around 1000AD. The term cognomen is understood to mean surname, however the cognomen in ancient Rome refers to something else. I think I've made myself crystal clear on the subject.
 
Gentlemen, may I ask how exactly this discussion about Roman surnames relates to R1b-U152?
 
Gentlemen, may I ask how exactly this discussion about Roman surnames relates to R1b-U152?

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

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

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

Other eggs from the same chicken were off-course some of the Celtic tribes, the Galatians in Anatolia and the Cimbri to name but a few.
 
I always preferred the lazy people to those arrogant. However, I also ask forgiveness for off-topic.

Returning to the main topic, i would not exclude the hypothesis of a spread of U152 by the colonization of the Roman settlers in non-Italian region. Just to realize how determined and how the Romans colonize land just look to Romania: a country of romanze language countries where the Roman settlers overcame the native Dacians, we are talking about digits with four zeros.
 
To answer to the "Britain question": is also possible that some U152 have moved from Roman Britain to the Scotland, north of Hadrian's Wall, during or after the Saxon invasion (many roman-britans fled to Ireland, for example)
 
To answer to the "Britain question": is also possible that some U152 have moved from Roman Britain to the Scotland, north of Hadrian's Wall, during or after the Saxon invasion (many roman-britans fled to Ireland, for example)

There is no R1b-U152 in South Ireland yet suggesting it did not enter Ireland from the south. Similarly, the British Isles has a hotspot in the Souteast and then the vast majority is found along the Northeast, not likely a Roman-era pattern of distribution.
 
To answer to the "Britain question": is also possible that some U152 have moved from Roman Britain to the Scotland, north of Hadrian's Wall, during or after the Saxon invasion (many roman-britans fled to Ireland, for example)

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

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

Haplogroup-J2.jpg


Roman_Empire_117AD.jpg


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

Haplogroup-R1b-S28.gif


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

763px-Hallstatt.png


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

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

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

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

Regarding the German component, there is the question: is this German or Germanic?
 
I'm not excited, I just wanted to visualize something for the sake of comparison. :)

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

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

Are you teasing me now? :p

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

Probably not, but more than 50% of the Romans were related to a sixth of the population in Thuringia.:unsure:
 
There is no R1b-U152 in South Ireland yet suggesting it did not enter Ireland from the south. Similarly, the British Isles has a hotspot in the Souteast and then the vast majority is found along the Northeast, not likely a Roman-era pattern of distribution.

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

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

What do you think of the hypothesis that most U152 arrived the spread of iron-working from the Hallstatt Culture in the 8th century BC (and possibly with a second wave from La-Tene into southern England with the Belgae in the 2nd century BC)? I think that this explains much better the distribution of U152 in Britain and the concentration.
 
The Goths and Lombards would have been unlikely candidates for spreading U152 since their areas of origin before the migration (modern-day western Ukraine with the former, and northern Germany with the latter). I personally think that Italian U106 has a much better likelihood of being of Lombardic origin.

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

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

isn't the area designated as Cisalpine gaul only the modern area of Romagna. there was Boii, Ligones and Samones people there - all celtic people.
The u152 is more around Emilia and Liguria which could indicate a merge of the aboriginal Ligurian people and migrating Etruscan people.
transalpine celt area would reflect the Ligurian and Raetia/swiss area
 
Sorry, I disagree. There is no evidence that the Romano-Britsh population moved in large scale into the Scottish lowlands. These lands were inhabited by the Picts, who were subsequently conquered by the Goidels that invaded from Ireland. The Picts, in turn, were P-Celtic people akin to the Britons and the Gauls.

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

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

This thread has been viewed 169753 times.

Back
Top