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

[Taranis]

Sorry no. That is complete nonsense. First off, eludes me where you get figures like "40%" from. In particular the below part is ludicrous:

"..., to escape a furious Rome (the tribe of the Boii, for example, migrated to Central and Eastern Europe, and gave its name to "Bohemia")." ...

It was actually the other way round! The Boii were originally native to Bohemia and migrated from there into northern Italy (other parts of the Boii migrated into the Pannonian basin and into Anatolia), but a main part of them remained behind. The Bohemian Boii actually remained the dominant tribe in the area until their territory was ravaged by the Germanic Cimbri in the 2nd century BC. Then, in the 1st century BC the Germanic Marcomanni conquered Bohemia.

Besides that, you somehow assume that the city of Rome was some kind of "undepletable pool" that somehow inexplicibly poured out hordes and hordes of settlers that swarmed across Europe to populate the areas that the Romans had recently conquered, somethat is completely impossible to hold to any kind of historic facts.

 

[Etrusco-romano]

Sorry no. That is complete nonsense. First off, eludes me where you get figures like "40%" from. In particular the below part is ludicrous:



It was actually the other way round! The Boii were originally native to Bohemia and migrated from there into northern Italy (other parts of the Boii migrated into the Pannonian basin and into Anatolia), but a main part of them remained behind. The Bohemian Boii actually remained the dominant tribe in the area until their territory was ravaged by the Germanic Cimbri in the 2nd century BC. Then, in the 1st century BC the Germanic Marcomanni conquered Bohemia.

Besides that, you somehow assume that the city of Rome was some kind of "undepletable pool" that somehow inexplicibly poured out hordes and hordes of settlers that swarmed across Europe to populate the areas that the Romans had recently conquered, somethat is completely impossible to hold to any kind of historic facts.

Tito Livio XXXVII, 57;
Strabone V, 1.

The Boi fled from the Romans through the Julian Alps and arrive to Bohemia.... Perhaps they came from Bohemia, migrated to Italy but returned in they lands when Rome defeat their tribe

However, you did not answer about the colonization of Cisalpine.

 

[Etrusco-romano]

Sorry no. That is complete nonsense. First off, eludes me where you get figures like "40%" from. In particular the below part is ludicrous:



It was actually the other way round! The Boii were originally native to Bohemia and migrated from there into northern Italy (other parts of the Boii migrated into the Pannonian basin and into Anatolia), but a main part of them remained behind. The Bohemian Boii actually remained the dominant tribe in the area until their territory was ravaged by the Germanic Cimbri in the 2nd century BC. Then, in the 1st century BC the Germanic Marcomanni conquered Bohemia.

Besides that, you somehow assume that the city of Rome was some kind of "undepletable pool" that somehow inexplicibly poured out hordes and hordes of settlers that swarmed across Europe to populate the areas that the Romans had recently conquered, somethat is completely impossible to hold to any kind of historic facts.

I think the 40% is take by the percentage of gauls mobilized by the tribes (multiplied by three and you get the total population: women, children and old people), it calculates how many died, and, with the archaeological remains, what extent were the massacres in the villages Cisalpine conquered.

 

[Taranis]

Tito Livio XXXVII, 57;
Strabone V, 1.

The Boi fled from the Romans through the Julian Alps and arrive to Bohemia.... Perhaps they came from Bohemia, migrated to Italy but returned in they lands when Rome defeat their tribe

Perhaps, but consider that Livy is not the most reliable source. There is a lot in his works that are confabulations or exaggerations.

However, you did not answer about the colonization of Cisalpine.

As I said, I find it utterly ludicrous to assume that the bulk of the population of northern Italy derives from Roman settlers. By that logic, one would assume a sheer insane population explosion in Latium and Central Italy that permanently poured out a new number of Roman settlers that settled these newly-conquered areas. This is utterly non-consistent with the Roman Empire described in all the sources. Also, like I said, if the Cisalpine Gauls were completely or near-completely wiped out (as you consistently assert) they would not have left such a decisive mark in northern Italy.

Also, if the Cisalpine Gauls were indeed all massacred or driven away, what point would there have been for Ptolemy in the 2nd century AD to still mention the Gaulish tribes in northern Italy?

 

[Etrusco-romano]

Perhaps, but consider that Livy is not the most reliable source. There is a lot in his works that are confabulations or exaggerations.



As I said, I find it utterly ludicrous to assume that the bulk of the population of northern Italy derives from Roman settlers. By that logic, one would assume a sheer insane population explosion in Latium and Central Italy that permanently poured out a new number of Roman settlers that settled these newly-conquered areas. This is utterly non-consistent with the Roman Empire described in all the sources. Also, like I said, if the Cisalpine Gauls were completely or near-completely wiped out (as you consistently assert) they would not have left such a decisive mark in northern Italy.

Also, if the Cisalpine Gauls were indeed all massacred or driven away, what point would there have been for Ptolemy in the 2nd century AD to still mention the Gaulish tribes in northern Italy?

There is also Strabo, and various Roman Annals report effective Boi drain through the Julian Alps.
I honestly do not know why Ptolemy speaks of "the Gallic tribes of Northern Italy", also because, assuming by contradiction that in Northern Italy were all descendants of the Gauls, in the second century AD the population were, at least 3 and a hal centuries, romanized. May have been referring the Gauls of France.

However, i'm not saying that all the people of northern Italy comes by the Romans, I am saying that the North Italy is the result of a mix mostly made ​​from Ligurian (which were quite numerous), Venetics and Roman colonists (who were really many), in which should be added a small percentage of Gauls survived the Roman destruction. Mediolanum, for example, whose build again by 6.000 family settlers (like 22/23.000 people) who come from all central-south italy, and when they arrive in this city where more or less 4/5.000 gauls (romans annales).

 

[Taranis]

There is also Strabo, and various Roman Annals report effective Boi drain through the Julian Alps.
I honestly do not know why Ptolemy speaks of "the Gallic tribes of Northern Italy", also because, assuming by contradiction that in Northern Italy were all descendants of the Gauls, in the second century AD the population were, at least 3 and a hal centuries, romanized. May have been referring the Gauls of France.

Ptolemy explicitly talks about Italy. He mentions the towns inhabited by the various Gaulish tribes (Senones, Boii, Cenomani, Insubres and Taurini). It's obviously very likely that these were romanized by the time of Ptolemy. However, the fact that he still mentions the tribes suggests that their tribal identities must still have existed. This is only possible if a large quantity of the population is indeed pre-Roman, and not derived from recent settlers.

However, i'm not saying that all the people of northern Italy comes by the Romans, I am saying that the North Italy is the result of a mix mostly made ​​from Ligurian (which were quite numerous), Venetics and Roman colonists (who were really many), in which should be added a small percentage of Gauls survived the Roman destruction. Mediolanum, for example, whose build again by 6.000 family settlers (like 22/23.000 people) who come from all central-south italy, and when they arrive in this city where more or less 4/5.000 gauls (romans annales).

You have to consider when the Gauls arrived in northern Italy (5th century BC). It seems likely that even if the actual number of Gauls that invaded northern Italy was fairly small, this would mean that they likely absorbed a sizable amount of the pre-Gaulish population (ie. Ligurians, Etruscans and Veneti). This actually brings me to something else: if we are to assume that U152 is both Italic/Roman and Alpine-Celtic, it's likely to assume that the other related ethnic groups in northern Italy (the Veneti, and possibly also the Ligurians) themselves were carriers of U152.

 

[Etrusco-romano]

Ptolemy explicitly talks about Italy. He mentions the towns inhabited by the various Gaulish tribes (Senones, Boii, Cenomani, Insubres and Taurini). It's obviously very likely that these were romanized by the time of Ptolemy. However, the fact that he still mentions the tribes suggests that their tribal identities must still have existed. This is only possible if a large quantity of the population is indeed pre-Roman, and not derived from recent settlers.




You have to consider when the Gauls arrived in northern Italy (5th century BC). It seems likely that even if the actual number of Gauls that invaded northern Italy was fairly small, this would mean that they likely absorbed a sizable amount of the pre-Gaulish population (ie. Ligurians, Etruscans and Veneti). This actually brings me to something else: if we are to assume that U152 is both Italic/Roman and Alpine-Celtic, it's likely to assume that the other related ethnic groups in northern Italy (the Veneti, and possibly also the Ligurians) themselves were carriers of U152.

I can agree that the Ligurians, Venetics and Etruscan could be carriers of the U152, also because none of these three cultures was Celtic (North Ligurians adopted the Celtic culture, but they were not Celts.)

 

[Dorianfinder]

As I said, I find it utterly ludicrous to assume that the bulk of the population of northern Italy derives from Roman settlers. By that logic, one would assume a sheer insane population explosion in Latium and Central Italy that permanently poured out a new number of Roman settlers that settled these newly-conquered areas.

You hit the nail squarely on the head with this comment. A distribution map of L2* and L2+ (Z49+) should make for interesting reading.

Genetic fitness always pushes up the variance, contrary to what many think, multiples of many offspring send variance climbing as mutations have a better chance of forming when turnover rates increase. The R1b-U152 variance for Italy does not indicate any rapid population increase for R1b-U152. In fact the variance and distribution in Italy shows a more recent expansion from a confined spot in Northern Italy.

 

[Taranis]

You hit the nail squarely on the head with this comment. A distribution map of L2* and L2+ (Z49+) should make for interesting reading.

Genetic fitness always pushes up the variance, contrary to what many think, multiples of many offspring send variance climbing as mutations have a better chance of forming when turnover rates increase. The R1b-U152 variance for Italy does not indicate any rapid population increase for R1b-U152. In fact the variance and distribution in Italy shows a more recent expansion from a confined spot in Northern Italy.

Are you suggesting that high variability of a Haplogroup at a spot should be interpretated as evidence of large population growth / a founder effect? And what are you exactly suggesting that this means for Italy?

 

[Dorianfinder]

Are you suggesting that high variability of a Haplogroup at a spot should be interpretated as evidence of large population growth / a founder effect? And what are you exactly suggesting that this means for Italy?

Founder effect does not explain what I'm referring to here. Think of it more like a spinning wheel, the faster it spins the more wear and tear on the wheel and the more chance of a 'mutation'. Population increase is not related to a single source, but when it happens a number of males produce more offspring which leads to a multiple effect. It leads to 'false' variance or higher than normal figures. Dienekes warns NOT to estimate age or tmrca with variance that depicts this multiple effect without taking the effect of unusual growth into account.

 

[Dorianfinder]

And what are you exactly suggesting that this means for Italy?

It suggests R1b-U152 in Italy has a focal point suggesting migration, settlement and gradual population increase. The confounding variable here is possible multiple migrations from other directions, eg. from Corsica to the West coast of Italy.

Now, from here the story can reach in two directions:
1. Outside group settles in North Italy and is strengthened by small additions of typically non-Italic people with U152, increasing over time.
2. Local U152 founder effect or multiple effect in Northern Italy.

In scenario 1 we would expect a low variance due to the confinement of a foreign population into a new region and other social constraints pushing genetic fitness levels lower than would otherwise be expected. This is typical of migrant or immigrant communities. They don't thrive usually.

In scenario 2 we would see elevated variance in this population due to rapid population increase. The other local U152 progenitors from other regions in Italy would create accelerated multiple effects over type increasing variance naturally as well. This is the least likely scenario of the two.

 

[Dorianfinder]

Regional rank of frequency (U152+ in all men)
North Italy + Corsica = 24.9%
Switzerland = 21.7%
France = 15.2%
Germany = 12%

U152 Variance at 67 markers
North & Central France = 1.51
All France = 1.25
North Germany = 1.22
Belgium = 1.22
Hungary = 1.21
England = 1.0
Switzerland = 0.98
Italy & Switzerland = 0.96
All Italy = 0.91
Non-Alpine Italy = 0.87

These figures suggest that the Franks may also have contributed to the R1b-U152 in Italy.

 

[Taranis]

So you are suggesting that Italian U152, especially northern Italian U152 has multiple sources?

 

[Dorianfinder]

So you are suggesting that Italian U152, especially northern Italian U152 has multiple sources?

Correct! It is just a matter of time really ... once the SNPs are available for testing the story of what R1b-U152 subclade fits in where will become clearer to us.

 

[Etrusco-romano]

I also think that the U152 in North Italy is the result of a mix of different peoples belonging precisely all'U152 (Romans, Italics, Ligurians, Venetics and a small part of Gaul), but I do not think that the issue can go beyond this (Franks, germans ecc...). If in Cisalpine Gaul there had been a large number of Gauls now you do not speak a dialect of Italian, a Romance language far from Italian as French.

 

[spongetaro]

I also think that the U152 in North Italy is the result of a mix of different peoples belonging precisely all'U152 (Romans, Italics, Ligurians, Venetics and a small part of Gaul), but I do not think that the issue can go beyond this (Franks, germans ecc...). .

I might say that all the people you mention are related to a same Bell beaker group that brought R1b U152 but the Bell beaker culture didn't really take place in the Italian peninsula

 

[Dorianfinder]

I also think that the U152 in North Italy is the result of a mix of different peoples belonging precisely all'U152 (Romans, Italics, Ligurians, Venetics and a small part of Gaul)

Only 2000 men have been found U152+, studies and commercial testing included. Your comment seems premature.

The U152 frequency for North Italy is suggestive of sampling error & reliability issues:
- North Italy [65N] = 43.1% U152+ (Busby)
- North Italy [34N] = 35.3% U152+ (Cruciani)
- North Italy [124N] = 26.6% U152+ (Myres)

The most significant decline in U152+ frequency was found in the much larger study.

 

[Sile]

I have already explained a few weeks ago that italy in the bronze age was comprised in the north of all ligurian tribes, the alps was mostly raeti tribes from the swiss to the adriatic sea.
The ligurians where basically from modern marsellie to trieste.
Around about 800-900 BC the etruscans came from the sea and landed in southern part of etruria. Veii became the capital.
Over time they moved south to create Rome ( the tiber river was called Tuscas Amnis ) and they also moved north.
When moving north they pushed into Ligurian tribes in Lombardy and came in contact in the lower alps with the raeti. around 650BC they came in contact with the Veneti and trade was established with them in a town called Cologna Veneta , south of Verona.
Early on the etruscans where seafarers and where allied with the carthagians and there combined navies tried to wreck Greek fleets and the greek wine industry. They even kicked the greeks out of Corsica.
Around the time of the pelopennisan wars, they stopped being seafarers.

approx 550BC the gallic-celts came down from the alps and pushed the etruscans out of lombardia and also Romagna.

Since there ( etruscan ) DNA was confirmed in mid 2010, it shows no U152 but does show J2a4h2. studies from 2010 by myers and capriani will enforce this further.

On U152, If it was Italian ( I think the ligurians are not really classified italian in the ancient times ) was Ligurian with maybe some gallic influences. its the only explanation for it to be carried around western europe with ease.

BTW - venetics means language, veneti means people. many people spoke venetic but where not veneti, same as many eventually spoke latin but where not Roman.

 

[Sile]

I also think that the U152 in North Italy is the result of a mix of different peoples belonging precisely all'U152 (Romans, Italics, Ligurians, Venetics and a small part of Gaul), but I do not think that the issue can go beyond this (Franks, germans ecc...). If in Cisalpine Gaul there had been a large number of Gauls now you do not speak a dialect of Italian, a Romance language far from Italian as French.

you do understand that the isobar of the romance language which seperates western romance from eastern romances languages in an ancient divide from the time of the iron age ( celtic migration )
This divide is called the La Spezia - Rimini line

 

[Sile]

Sorry no. That is complete nonsense. First off, eludes me where you get figures like "40%" from. In particular the below part is ludicrous:



It was actually the other way round! The Boii were originally native to Bohemia and migrated from there into northern Italy (other parts of the Boii migrated into the Pannonian basin and into Anatolia), but a main part of them remained behind. The Bohemian Boii actually remained the dominant tribe in the area until their territory was ravaged by the Germanic Cimbri in the 2nd century BC. Then, in the 1st century BC the Germanic Marcomanni conquered Bohemia.

Besides that, you somehow assume that the city of Rome was some kind of "undepletable pool" that somehow inexplicibly poured out hordes and hordes of settlers that swarmed across Europe to populate the areas that the Romans had recently conquered, somethat is completely impossible to hold to any kind of historic facts.

a lot of internet sites have the boii originating on the modern french - german border and splitting, on e going to italy the other to bohemia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boii