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

[Taranis]

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.

I would rule out such a migration of Romano-British because no such thing was recorded. The "Old North" (roughly corresponding with northern England) was Brythonic-speaking (specifically a language usually refered to as "Cumbric", related with Welsh) until it gradually became Anglicized in the Medieval Ages. Even during the height of Roman power, control in northern England was volatile at best, and most Roman settlement was in the south and east of Britain (conversely, the north and west were the areas were Celtic languages survived into the Medieval Ages).

Another issue is this: if you subtract the Germanic components in England (U-106, as well as most I1, I2b and R1a), the concentration of U152 becomes much higher. I1 accounts for about 14% in England, and R1b-U106 accounts for approximately 25-30%. If you add I2b and R1a (which are also possible to be of Germanic origin, at least to a significant degree). If you add this together, you get approximately 40-50% of all male Haplogroups. If you reduce these Germanic components, the ratio of the remaining Haplogroups (mainly R1b-U152 and R1b-L21) becomes much higher. So we are talking about concentrations of as much as 20-30% of the pre-Anglo-Saxon population being U152. Now we have to consider that if U152 is dominantly Italic/Roman, you have to consider that it would not be the only Roman Haplogroup in England. The most obvious candidate for otherwise Roman Y-DNA in Britain is Haplogroup J2, which accounts for about 3.5% of the modern-day population. If we subtract the Germanic components, we end up with 6-7% of J2. So, we would be talking about approximately a quarter to over a third of the pre-Anglo-Saxon population being of Roman descend. How likely is this? Not very in my opinion.

Another aspect is Celtic tribes which you can find both in Britain and on the mainland, including:
- the Atrebates (Arras, France and Silchester, Hamshire, England)
- the Parisii (Paris, France, and Brough, Yorkshire, England)
- the Brigantii (Bregenz, Austria, and York, England)

From the linguistic (speakers of P-Celtic languages) and archaeological perspective, we have evidence for a fairly large-scale Celtic migration into Britain. In my opinion, the conclusion can be only that most English/British U-152 is of Alpine Celtic origin (since it matches the pattern we see), and not Roman/Italic.

I still think that there should be an Italic/Roman component to British U152, but if you correlate U152 against J2, it's clear that no more than a quarter or a fifth of the British U152 (in the areas that saw intense Roman settlement, that is) can be of Roman origin.

 

[Etrusco-romano]

I would rule out such a migration of Romano-British because no such thing was recorded. The "Old North" (roughly corresponding with northern England) was Brythonic-speaking (specifically a language usually refered to as "Cumbric", related with Welsh) until it gradually became Anglicized in the Medieval Ages. Even during the height of Roman power, control in northern England was volatile at best, and most Roman settlement was in the south and east of Britain (conversely, the north and west were the areas were Celtic languages survived into the Medieval Ages).

Another issue is this: if you subtract the Germanic components in England (U-106, as well as most I1, I2b and R1a), the concentration of U152 becomes much higher. I1 accounts for about 14% in England, and R1b-U106 accounts for approximately 25-30%. If you add I2b and R1a (which are also possible to be of Germanic origin, at least to a significant degree). If you add this together, you get approximately 40-50% of all male Haplogroups. If you reduce these Germanic components, the ratio of the remaining Haplogroups (mainly R1b-U152 and R1b-L21) becomes much higher. So we are talking about concentrations of as much as 20-30% of the pre-Anglo-Saxon population being U152. Now we have to consider that if U152 is dominantly Italic/Roman, you have to consider that it would not be the only Roman Haplogroup in England. The most obvious candidate for otherwise Roman Y-DNA in Britain is Haplogroup J2, which accounts for about 3.5% of the modern-day population. If we subtract the Germanic components, we end up with 6-7% of J2. So, we would be talking about approximately a quarter to over a third of the pre-Anglo-Saxon population being of Roman descend. How likely is this? Not very in my opinion.

Another aspect is Celtic tribes which you can find both in Britain and on the mainland, including:
- the Atrebates (Arras, France and Silchester, Hamshire, England)
- the Parisii (Paris, France, and Brough, Yorkshire, England)
- the Brigantii (Bregenz, Austria, and York, England)

From the linguistic (speakers of P-Celtic languages) and archaeological perspective, we have evidence for a fairly large-scale Celtic migration into Britain. In my opinion, the conclusion can be only that most English/British U-152 is of Alpine Celtic origin (since it matches the pattern we see), and not Roman/Italic.

I still think that there should be an Italic/Roman component to British U152, but if you correlate U152 against J2, it's clear that no more than a quarter or a fifth of the British U152 (in the areas that saw intense Roman settlement, that is) can be of Roman origin.

I think I do not charge the spread of J2 in Great Britain to the Roman-Italic, but to simple Roman colonists, perhaps from southern Italy (Italiotis, and so Greeks) and Etruria; so if excluded, the J2 must still give a "piece of cake" to the reale settlers Roman-Italic (Romans, Samnites, Umbrian, etc. ...): if they are not J2, they actualy are a part (not all) of percentage of U152 in Britain i think.
Traduci testo o pagina web

I think that the conclusion is that the presence of U152 in the UK is due in part to the Roman-Italic settlers, in part to the Celts Britons in part to the Gallo-Roman settlers arrived in the second century century AD

 

[Dorianfinder]

I think I do not charge the spread of J2 in Great Britain to the Roman-Italic, but to simple Roman colonists, perhaps from southern Italy (Italiotis, and so Greeks) and Etruria; so if excluded, the J2 must still give a "piece of cake" to the reale settlers Roman-Italic (Romans, Samnites, Umbrian, etc. ...): if they are not J2, they actualy are a part (not all) of percentage of U152 in Britain i think.
Traduci testo o pagina web

I think that the conclusion is that the presence of U152 in the UK is due in part to the Roman-Italic settlers, in part to the Celts Britons in part to the Gallo-Roman settlers arrived in the second century century AD

What do you mean by ... reale settlers Roman-Italic (Romans, Samnites, Umbrian, etc. ...)?

Bath in England is a well known Roman-era warm water spa and a Unesco World Heritage site. No R1b-U152 has been found anywhere near Bath or Bristol where Roman ships would have docked. It is probably the best preserved Roman settlement in England.

 

[Dorianfinder]

I still think that there should be an Italic/Roman component to British U152, but if you correlate U152 against J2, it's clear that no more than a quarter or a fifth of the British U152 (in the areas that saw intense Roman settlement, that is) can be of Roman origin.

I agree in principle but should just add that in 1078AD England was said to have had no more than a million inhabitants and France across the channel was bursting with a serious overpopulation problem. Brittany is L21 country, also likely that some French U152 may have crossed during this period. I believe, having read quite a lot of Roman accounts about Britain the Romans did not favour going there at all.

 

[Sile]

If it was already confirmed in mid 2010, that the etruscans where from anatolia
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/jun/18/italy.johnhooper

and there is hardly any U152 there. Is it not reasonable to count out the Etruscans and roman/etruscans as carries of this dna to England.
It would seem that only gallic/roman men went to England

 

[Sile]

What do you mean by ... reale settlers Roman-Italic (Romans, Samnites, Umbrian, etc. ...)?

Bath in England is a well known Roman-era warm water spa and a Unesco World Heritage site. No R1b-U152 has been found anywhere near Bath or Bristol where Roman ships would have docked. It is probably the best preserved Roman settlement in England.

Reale means royal .....maybe he meant the nobility.

 

[Sile]

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:

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

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

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.

The J2 you want to associated with U152 would only be J2a4h2 ( L25) as this is in the northern part of italy as well as anatolia, the phoencians and the cretans. the southern part would be the J2b2 found mosthly south of Naples ( maybe a more african, albanian or greek mainland one )
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Pw3tA_NBX2I/Tdu2a7aaPBI/AAAAAAAAGqI/8FmRgbTo5tk/s640/phoenicians.jpg

 

[Etrusco-romano]

Sorry, i mean "really" (Roman-Italic settlers, not Etruscan or Italiotes). If we exclude the J2 gene as a purely Roman-Italic (and we must do it because it was greek-Etruscan), where their genetic trace? What you say about the "Roman landing" is not correct, because, as I said, many Roman-British, with the arrival of the Saxons, fled from their home towns, spreading throughout Great Britain.
Think about the revolt of Boudicca, the Roman historians estimated that his army killed about 1 / 3 of the Roman settlers in England, about 70,000 or 80.000: this is for make us understand the greatness of the Roman colonization.


So, where is the Roman-Italic R1b remained in Britain?

 

[Dorianfinder]

The J2 you want to associated with U152 would only be J2a4h2 ( L25) as this is in the northern part of italy as well as anatolia, the phoencians and the cretans. the southern part would be the J2b2 found mosthly south of Naples ( maybe a more african, albanian or greek mainland one )
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Pw3tA_NBX2I/Tdu2a7aaPBI/AAAAAAAAGqI/8FmRgbTo5tk/s640/phoenicians.jpg

J2a4h was not found anywhere in Greece except 8% on Crete along the coast (King et al.) suggesting it was not on tour during the Roman globalization of Southeast Europe. The levels of J2a4h in Italy and Crete may be from the rural population possible akin to the Minoan-Etruscan-Anatolians non-IE speakers.

J2a4b is particularly high in Central-North Italy with 9.6% and gives a better indication of where the Romans had settled in Europe. It is common among warrior-type J2 people and is spread throughout Greece but is concentrated in the Caucasus.

 

[Sile]

J2a4h was not found anywhere in Greece except 8% on Crete along the coast (King et al.) suggesting it was not on tour during the Roman globalization of Southeast Europe. The levels of J2a4h in Italy and Crete may be from the rural population possible akin to the Minoan-Etruscan-Anatolians non-IE speakers.

J2a4b is particularly high in Central-North Italy with 9.6% and gives a better indication of where the Romans had settled in Europe. It is common among warrior-type J2 people and is spread throughout Greece but is concentrated in the Caucasus.

thats what I said, we agree

 

[Dorianfinder]

Sorry, i mean "really" (Roman-Italic settlers, not Etruscan or Italiotes). If we exclude the J2 gene as a purely Roman-Italic (and we must do it because it was greek-Etruscan), where their genetic trace? What you say about the "Roman landing" is not correct, because, as I said, many Roman-British, with the arrival of the Saxons, fled from their home towns, spreading throughout Great Britain.
Think about the revolt of Boudicca, the Roman historians estimated that his army killed about 1 / 3 of the Roman settlers in England, about 70,000 or 80.000: this is for make us understand the greatness of the Roman colonization.


So, where is the Roman-Italic R1b remained in Britain?

Roman landing? The Romans established themselves militarily along major ports. Bristol was the most probable harbor giving access to the Roman settlement of Aquae Sulis.

Your reasoning regarding dispersal of a population following invasions is correct, however you forget to mention that people often head for the highlands when threatened from the coastal plains. Britain's distribution of R1b-U152 is exceptionally lowland and along the East coast. So the Angle & Saxon Germanic invasions did not frighten the R1b-U152 all over the show.

 

[Etrusco-romano]

So, may be it's probably that the J2a4b is particoular of etruscan people (they was allocated in the number of 30/40.000 in the North Italy) or Ligurian people, but not typical of Italic populations.

I could agree with you, because there are not enough evidence to determine a precise movement of the U152 following the invasion of Germanic, but it remains unknown: where are genetic traces of the Italic-Roman? Italics and Romans were the vast majority of R1b, I think this is a fact, and it is also certain that, for example, 12,000 people in 87 AD from below Abruzzo and Irpinia "accepted" a colonization invitation issued by 3 Roman magistrates to colonize England, and this is still one of the many examples of Roman colonization of England (56 AD: 5.000 people from Piceno; 97 AD: 9.000 people from Latium and Campania ecc...)

PS: where did you find the information related to J2a4b in Italy? There are sites where I can find information such as this but also about other haplogroups?

 

[Taranis]

I agree in principle but should just add that in 1078AD England was said to have had no more than a million inhabitants and France across the channel was bursting with a serious overpopulation problem. Brittany is L21 country, also likely that some French U152 may have crossed during this period. I believe, having read quite a lot of Roman accounts about Britain the Romans did not favour going there at all.

Regarding L21, my opinion is that it derives from the first wave of Celtic peoples who may have arrived in Britain in the Bronze Age. Specifically, the distribution of L21 largely matches the Atlantic Bronze Age, at least, the northern portion of it (I'm uncertain about Iberia, because it appears that U152 is more common there than L21). This is also backed up linguistically: the early inhabitants of Britain would have been Q-Celtic (like the Irish), and by the 4th century BC it was apparently completely P-Celtic (as evidenced by the name "Pritenni", which is in turn has a cognate in Irish as "Cruithne"). This means that we must have had a large immigration of P-Celtic peoples from the mainland. In my opinion, this occured in two waves, the first wave being with the Hallstatt Culture which brought iron-working to Britain in the 8th/7th century BC. Additionally, southern Britain did see extensive settlement by La-Tene people from northern Gaul (the Belgae) in the two centuries before the Roman conquest of the island. As I mentioned before, there are Belgic tribes which are found on both sides of the Channel. I'm saying that there must be a match in genetics with the linguistic and archaeological patterns described above, and U152 in Britain matches these patterns best.

 

[Dorianfinder]

So, may be it's probably that the J2a4b is particoular of etruscan people (they was allocated in the number of 30/40.000 in the North Italy) or Ligurian people, but not typical of Italic populations.

I could agree with you, because there are not enough evidence to determine a precise movement of the U152 following the invasion of Germanic, but it remains unknown: where are genetic traces of the Italic-Roman? Italics and Romans were the vast majority of R1b, I think this is a fact, and it is also certain that, for example, 12,000 people in 87 AD from below Abruzzo and Irpinia "accepted" a colonization invitation issued by 3 Roman magistrates to colonize England, and this is still one of the many examples of Roman colonization of England (56 AD: 5.000 people from Piceno; 97 AD: 9.000 people from Latium and Campania ecc...)

PS: where did you find the information related to J2a4b in Italy? There are sites where I can find information such as this but also about other haplogroups?

I will break it down for you to help the discussion and whoever is interested.

Here are some of your assumptions:
- The Italic tribes of Italy were mostly Indo-European R1b.
- The Italic tribes of Italy formed the Italic-Roman society.
- R1b-U152 predominates in Northern Italy, therefore it must be from the Italic tribes.

Can you see where the problem lies?

 

[Etrusco-romano]

I will break it down for you to help the discussion and whoever is interested.

Here are some of your assumptions:
- The Italic tribes of Italy were mostly Indo-European R1b.
- The Italic tribes of Italy formed the Italic-Roman society.
- R1b-U152 predominates in Northern Italy, therefore it must be from the Italic tribes.

Can you see where the problem lies?

Would you say that the Italics were all L haplogroup? However, enlighten me: what haplogroup belonged italic people if not R1b?

I have already said that most of the Gauls in Cisalpine was destroyed by the Romans, and the italic settlers take their places; haplogroup R1b-U152 is predominant in Northern Italy becouse the Italic peoples did not have to mingle with the Greeks, how happen in the south italy, and so the frequencies have a greater presence dell'U152.

However, I propose again the question: if the Italics were not U152, what they were (we're talking about 60% of the Italian population in the second century BC)?

 

[Dorianfinder]

Regarding L21, my opinion is that it derives from the first wave of Celtic peoples who may have arrived in Britain in the Bronze Age. Specifically, the distribution of L21 largely matches the Atlantic Bronze Age, at least, the northern portion of it (I'm uncertain about Iberia, because it appears that U152 is more common there than L21). This is also backed up linguistically: the early inhabitants of Britain would have been Q-Celtic (like the Irish), and by the 4th century BC it was apparently completely P-Celtic (as evidenced by the name "Pritenni", which is in turn has a cognate in Irish as "Cruithne"). This means that we must have had a large immigration of P-Celtic peoples from the mainland. In my opinion, this occured in two waves, the first wave being with the Hallstatt Culture which brought iron-working to Britain in the 8th/7th century BC. Additionally, southern Britain did see extensive settlement by La-Tene people from northern Gaul (the Belgae) in the two centuries before the Roman conquest of the island. As I mentioned before, there are Belgic tribes which are found on both sides of the Channel. I'm saying that there must be a match in genetics with the linguistic and archaeological patterns described above, and U152 in Britain matches these patterns best.

The Belgic tribes are in part also a reasonable source for R1b-U152, the L21 distribution in Britain does suggest an early introduction with a sustained period of relative peace with little admixture from outside the isle. The fact that the Brittany coast has significant levels of L21 simply confirms population movements between Europe and the isle, it is likely that the flow was in both directions and throughout a prolonged period.

 

[Dorianfinder]

Would you say that the Italics were all L haplogroup? However, enlighten me: what haplogroup belonged italic people if not R1b?

I have already said that most of the Gauls in Cisalpine was destroyed by the Romans, and the italic settlers take their places; haplogroup R1b-U152 is predominant in Northern Italy becouse the Italic peoples did not have to mingle with the Greeks, how happen in the south italy, and so the frequencies have a greater presence dell'U152.

However, I propose again the question: if the Italics were not U152, what they were (we're talking about 60% of the Italian population in the second century BC)?

You make a giant leap from ancient Italic tribes to the R1b-U152 subclade. This is problematic!

 

[Etrusco-romano]

You make a giant leap from ancient Italic tribes to the R1b-U152 subclade. This is problematic!

I'm just saying that: in conditions of great prosperity, in Italy millions of Italics proliferated and tens of thousands of them were sent abroad as settlers. It 'very possible that my theory about U152 in Europe is wrong, but i posted two questions on which I have not received a response:

1) If the Italics (and therefore the Romans) were not U152 (or R1b in generaly), what they were?

2) If the Italics (and therefore the Romans) were not J2, where are their genetic traces in England
(knowing that tens of thousand of them migrated to the Great Britain)?

 

[Taranis]

Would you say that the Italics were all L haplogroup? However, enlighten me: what haplogroup belonged italic people if not R1b?

You seem to assume that they somehow were exclusively (or at least dominantly) R1b, whereas it is far more probable that they were an admixture. It is utterly unreasonable to assume anything else. In my opinion, it's more probably to think of them as a mixure of R1b-U152, J2 and E1b1b. From Neolithic times, there are also G2a and I1a1 in Italy.

I have already said that most of the Gauls in Cisalpine was destroyed by the Romans, and the italic settlers take their places; haplogroup R1b-U152 is predominant in Northern Italy becouse the Italic peoples did not have to mingle with the Greeks, how happen in the south italy, and so the frequencies have a greater presence dell'U152.

This is not true. First off, you have extensive settlements by multiple tribes: Taurini (Turin/Torino), Boii (Bologna), Insubres (Milano) and Senones (Senigallia). It's actually more likely that they were largely latinized. Ptolemy uses the term "Gallia Togata" ("Toga-wearing Gaul") for northern Italy.

However, I propose again the question: if the Italics were not U152, what they were (we're talking about 60% of the Italian population in the second century BC)?

As I said, it's utterly unreasonable to assume one ethnic group must have one Y-Haplogroup.

The Belgic tribes are in part also a reasonable source for R1b-U152, the L21 distribution in Britain does suggest an early introduction with a sustained period of relative peace with little admixture from outside the isle. The fact that the Brittany coast has significant levels of L21 simply confirms population movements between Europe and the isle, it is likely that the flow was in both directions and throughout a prolonged period.

With regard for Breton L21, I think it comes from two sources: the Bronze Age population, and from Brythonic immigrants during the migration period.

 

[Etrusco-romano]

You seem to assume that they somehow were exclusively (or at least dominantly) R1b, whereas it is far more probable that they were an admixture. It is utterly unreasonable to assume anything else. In my opinion, it's more probably to think of them as a mixure of R1b-U152, J2 and E1b1b. From Neolithic times, there are also G2a and I1a1 in Italy.



This is not true. First off, you have extensive settlements by multiple tribes: Taurini (Turin/Torino), Boii (Bologna), Insubres (Milano) and Senones (Senigallia). It's actually more likely that they were largely latinized. Ptolemy uses the term "Gallia Togata" ("Toga-wearing Gaul") for northern Italy.



As I said, it's utterly unreasonable to assume one ethnic group must have one Y-Haplogroup.



With regard for Breton L21, I think it comes from two sources: the Bronze Age population, and from Brythonic immigrants during the migration period.

I agree with you, but I'm not saying that all Italics were R1b, I'm saying that a good proportion of them (the majority) were it.
What you say about the Gaul is not true, i translate now one of the many articles on the issue "Gauls in northern Italy" write here in Italy:

The Celts in the North Italy
One of the great German historians, that Karl Julius Beloch, the early twentieth century brought forth an interesting research on the population growth of pre-Roman, and the result was that in the third century BC the peoples collectively, the "Italics" amounted to about 4 million and a half (Italics, Italioti, Etruscans, Romans, and Messapi Iapigi), which had to be added about 200,000 Ligurian (which, it must be remembered, were not quite Celtic, and indeed much more resembled the pre-Indo-European peoples) , 150,000 Venetics (who were probably Latin-Faliscan Italics, Illyrians or at most, but not Gauls), and about 150,000 Gaul (Boi, Senonian, Cenomani c ...). On these figures so we can begin to analyze the development of northern Italy as a political entity, ethnic and even religious.

As we all know, the advance of Rome into northern Italy began precisely in the third century BC, when the same "northern Italy" (Piceno and Umbria), had to ally with the Gauls to counter the advance.
The last great battle of the Celts against the Romans in Italy is undoubtedly that of Talomone, where they were finally defeated. The Romans, after the victory, they extended their domain (initially more formal than real) in the territories north of the Apennines. The first advance was devastating to the Gauls, who, being notoriously prone to submit to the will of the invaders, most of them were massacred. Their number was reduced drastically (perhaps 40% of them perished in the initial fight against Rome), but again they found the strength to fight the Urbe, Italy came when Hannibal, Carthaginian leader who had the specific intent to tear Soil Rome. As we all know the General was defeated Punic, the Peninsula residents and people who had allied with him against Rome were severely punished by the latter: we remember the Ligurian Apuani deported, 50 years after the Punic war, mass in the Sannio (27,000), and remind the Italians rebelled Italioti, punished with death, and finally, remember the Gaul, of which the Roman sword fell violently, until force (even) the flight out of Italy, to escape a furious Rome (the tribe of the Boii, for example, migrated to Central and Eastern Europe, and gave its name to "Bohemia"). At the beginning of the second century BC Gaul is entirely under the control of the Roman Empire, and its lands have been redistributed among the various "Gens" Roman. Historians remind us strong complaints by the new "owners" of the north, who found themselves in front of a huge but the Po valley is uninhabited. Here, then, that the Senate began its work of "rebuilding" of the North. Dozens of colonies were established in the sub-Apennine and Italy went on several occasions, blocks of 6,000 families, Roman, Etruscan and Italic italiote to colonize the north of Italy. . In the Veneto and Liguria these new groups of settlers were superimposed to the previous populations, in a situation of substantial equality, but in Lombardy, Emilia-Romagna and Piedmont High, they completely supplanted the previous culture, which now rested on some Gallic village fortunately escaped Roman's fury.

Conclusions on "Celtic concerned"
about 150,000 on the Cisalpine Gauls, it is possible that during the Roman Empire it remained about restocking 30/40.000, which merged with the much more numerous populations of settlers that we commonly call "Roman Italic" . Partly as a result of a genetic study conducted by the New York Times, it seems that Italy is a sort of "genetic island" (with Finland), where the population has remained roughly the same as 2,000 years ago. And 'therefore fair to say that the current Northern Italians are descended from the ancient settlers in large part be sent Roma.