Identifying the Y-DNA haplogroups of ancient Roman families through their descendants

[torzio]

That's not true. Apart from the example I gave with Latin names (e.g. Di Tullio), the use of "De/Di + given name" in Italian means "son of ..." (e.g. Di Martino) but this is never used in French or Spanish (Spanish use the -ez ending as in Martinez, while French just use the given name as it is, as in Martin).

What you mean is "Da + place name" as in Da Vinci, which is similar to the French or Spanish "De + place name". But that is only for non-nobility. Both French and Spanish nobility use "de + place name" with a lower case "de" (not "De"). The Italian equivalent is "di + place name" but it is rare. Most Italian noble families don't use the nobiliary particle, just like in the UK.

I looked though hundreds of BDM records in north-Italy pre 1805 and the only De is from french or spanish owned italian lands

I have Martin in old veneto lands circa 1600 , when they got "nobility" they changed to martinengo and Martinigo if they lived in Venice

I have cousins whose surname ends in "son" ..........and there are hundreds in italy with this surname. most veneti surname did not end in a vowel unless it was o

I never seen a Di + place

a typical record is .........Secco Giovanni di Paolo .................meaning...Giovanni Secco son of paolo and the di means Paolo was alive at the time ..............if Paolo was dead it would be written as Secco Giovanni fu Paolo

then we also have in BDM records Del Di ( the day ).....there is no Del Giorno

and yes...french , spanish and italian lands ruled by french and spanish used De for name and place ...no issue here

[torzio]

Further point on Di and Da in Italy is in majority where very poor families in the past, long ago

a typical system ...........my great-great-great-grandmother was a Santolin ...........whose name came from originally Di Santo.............who when the venetians started their census of the populace after taking Treviso, Padua, Vicenza and Verona from Veneti, Swabian and Bavarian families found this from my line .........What is your name Piero , from who, Santo , do you have a surname, no .........so you are, Piero Di Santo .............your surname will be Di Santo

from this surnames evolved due to wealth , ie, if you became noble or joined a guild

Romans also had Census ( only of men of military age ) ............so a census in Italy is not new

[Salento]

Grandma was De Vitis :)

[torzio]

Grandma was De Vitis :)

thanks

mine where....paternal side only...............not in any order
Amadio
Manfre
Santolin
Massolin
Minatel
Miotto
Greselin
Penner
Perenthaler

and others

[Cpluskx]

According to Gregory Clark's work on surnames, there is almost no social mobility and elites and low social class families do not change even after thousands of years. (In Japan for example Samurai descendants still run the country) The reason is probably they (different classes) usually don't mix with each other, although intrusion of a new large immigrant group into the population can change the status quo. So probably the modern elite Italian families are descendants of Ancient Patrician families.

[bigsnake49]

Except most patrician families in Italy and elsewhere in the Roman Empire were slaughtered by the barbarian hordes.

[Salento]

Except most patrician families in Italy and elsewhere in the Roman Empire were slaughtered by the barbarian hordes.

When we say family, it's not just one.
Think instead of an extended family with many members spread around.

The Patrician families had resources,

I'm sure many of them tried to make a deal when possible, many others went on vacation for a while :)

[Angela]

I don't know. I can see both sides.

There is historical documentation for the absorption of some Italian elites by the Goths because they were familiar enough with Rome, and smart enough to know they didn't have the skills to run the "country". That was less the case with the Langobards, but was again the case to some extent with the Franks.

On the other hand, most of the marquesses, counts, etc. of the medieval period were or "barbarian" Germanic origin.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTKQ4o9TJj4

With the start of the Renaissance there was an upheaval in Italy, and the Germanic "Book of Gotha" aristocracy was increasingly overshadowed by up and coming bright, capable people from the middle classes like the Medici, whom no one would have called descendants of Germanics at the time. To survive, and get some of the massive wealth being produced by the merchants and bankers, the aristocracy intermarried with them, starting with the Orsini.

The Medici wound up intermarrying into the royalty of Europe, with mixed results for them imo, and maybe even for the royal families.

So, in Italy, I think the "elites" were rather "mixed" from the Renaissance on, at least, although not necessarily with descendants of patrician families, but also with members of lower classes who were becoming more and more rich and powerful.

I'm not totally sure of this, but I think the classes in Italy were more porous perhaps than in places like England or even France. There was none of the stigma of being "in trade" for example, which echoes the case in the imperial period when Senators and members of important gens were enthusiastic merchants and "manufacturers".

It's a different mindset.

[torzio]

I agree with this renaissance mixture of families in Italy......one example are the Gonzaga family of Mantua ............clearly aiming always for a union with the Nassau house ( german ) or a French Lorraine area family
An interesting read on this is
A Renaissance Tapestry by Kate Simon

[bigsnake49]

I think the Goths were somewhat romanized from having lived in the periphery of the empire for a long time. However the Lombards were brutal. They did not just slaughter the elite but the peasants as well.

[Stuvanè]

@Maciamo
@Torzio

The rule that absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence always applies. On this I agree, it is obvious that surnames were born well before the provisions of the Council of Trent. However, it represents the term "post quem" from which we have a material - so to speak "official" and stable - to work on. Historians, archaeologists and scholars in general are forced to always do research with these stakes around. First it is all conjectural, but difficult to control. Even in Italy surnames - or something that could be equivalent to the surname modernly understood - appear in notarial deeds especially from the 11th century, but identifying a linearity in their assumption or transmission is an almost desperate task. The pitfalls are several.


Without going too far back in time and taking up one of the simplest and most banal cases: think of the surname of Raphael, the painter. His father is Giovanni Santi, but in various documents of 1493, relating to some payments for his services in Urbino, after a few months he was mentioned both as "Giovanni Sante" and as 'Giovanni de Sante'. It therefore seems to see that a sort of ablative of origin was adopted for the surname, with or without the particle "de". Raphael will further complicate things: re-Latinize the surname to the genitive when he signs the works ("Sancti") and it gives rise to a Latin nominative form "Sanctius", courtly I suppose, that in common Italian it will become "Sanzio". All this occurs over a generation, with a surname already taking on 4-5 variants, determined both by the use made by the same surname bearers and by the writers of the documents. I dare not think about what could happen over several generations.


Btw ... we have just seen a use of the particle "de", a blessing and a curse by scholars of documentary genealogy (it could be a sign of nobility when it is reported in minuscule, but this is not guaranteed). Bizzocchi, professor of history in Pisa, who has studied Italian anthroponymy in depth in recent years, reports that the "de" was a way of indicating a family, regardless of its nobility, in documents in Latin. But be careful: if in a document I find written "Paulus Martini", ie nominative + genitive, I have to tend to translate "Paolo di Martino"; if I find written "Paulus de Martinis", that is, nominative + plural ablative, I have to translate "Paolo Martini". This simply means that a patronymic is being transformed into a stable surname. In itself, the persistence of the "de" in a surname is indicative, but not conclusive.


The Veneto case is independent in the Italian anthroponymy, also because here there are very marked regional typing phenomena of the pre-existing Latin, and in addition it underwent an important Tuscan influence in the late Middle Ages - given by merchants and artisans who went and settled in the Northeast - and an equally important enrichment of the onomastic heritage given by the "imaginative" names, those conveyed by Franco-chivalric literature.

https://edizionicafoscari.unive.it/m...11-9-ch-07.pdf

For example, speaking of common surnames, the Latin suffix -arius indicates a relationship of dependence / connection, Bizzocchi always explains. In the Tuscan language it is normally transformed into "-aio", but in other areas such as the Veneto area the ending changes to "-aro", or to "-ier" or "-er". Here then a surname indicating a profession, that of baker (in late Latin "furnarius") becomes "Fornaro", up to the more extreme types "Fornasier" / "Fornaser". Or there are surnames that derive from the name of a profession in dialect. For example, with "Marangoni" / "Marangon" there are certainly carpenters or ax masters. (in other cases still the Latin nexus is encrypted, see the Sardinian surname "Frau" which means blacksmith, derived from the Latin "faber", locally evolved into "Frabu" / Frau ".)


In conclusion: my "caveat" lies simply in the fact that already here in Italy it becomes extremely complex to study these phenomena, because different traditions and cultural elements of secular significance merge, often asynchronous, including the different use (or familiarity ) of Latin (already highly regionalized and not very homogeneous in antiquity) and of the derivative onomastic aspects. I don't know much about what happens outside of Italy on these studies, but some more methodological shrewdness is never out of place.

https://www.ganino.com/cognomi_italiani

[Maciamo]

@Maciamo
@Torzio

The rule that absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence always applies. On this I agree, it is obvious that surnames were born well before the provisions of the Council of Trent. However, it represents the term "post quem" from which we have a material - so to speak "official" and stable - to work on. Historians, archaeologists and scholars in general are forced to always do research with these stakes around. First it is all conjectural, but difficult to control. Even in Italy surnames - or something that could be equivalent to the surname modernly understood - appear in notarial deeds especially from the 11th century, but identifying a linearity in their assumption or transmission is an almost desperate task. The pitfalls are several.


Without going too far back in time and taking up one of the simplest and most banal cases: think of the surname of Raphael, the painter. His father is Giovanni Santi, but in various documents of 1493, relating to some payments for his services in Urbino, after a few months he was mentioned both as "Giovanni Sante" and as 'Giovanni de Sante'. It therefore seems to see that a sort of ablative of origin was adopted for the surname, with or without the particle "de". Raphael will further complicate things: re-Latinize the surname to the genitive when he signs the works ("Sancti") and it gives rise to a Latin nominative form "Sanctius", courtly I suppose, that in common Italian it will become "Sanzio". All this occurs over a generation, with a surname already taking on 4-5 variants, determined both by the use made by the same surname bearers and by the writers of the documents. I dare not think about what could happen over several generations.

Thank you for the explanations. I have also read several books about the etymology of surnames. In my genealogical research I have also seen several variants of the same surname, either for the same individual or between generations. In some older documents names are often Latinised. It doesn't really matter as we can always recognise the surname. What you explained is something that most genealogists who have dealt with medieval or Renaissance documents know from experience. This is why I have taken into account lots of names that could be heavily corrupted over time, and by the change of languages in one region. When I see a name like Cloudt in Dutch it makes me immediately think of a corruption of Claude or Claudius. When I see the name Cole in England of Kohlmann in Germany, my mind automatically translates it to Carbo in Latin. If I encounter French names like Pinard or Surville, I know instinctively (as a French speaker) that they could very well be the corrupted French rendering of Pinarius or Servilius by comparing how common Latin words evolved into modern French.

The biggest obstacle is not a linguistic one. Even if we can find strong linguistic evidence linking an ancient Latin surname to a modern one, we cannot know if wives have always been faithful over the last 30 or 40 generations. This is true even for recent genealogy. Infidelity could happen at any generation. It's hard to determine the rate of non-paternity events because of many factors, among which:

- It depends on the socio-economic class and culture (e.g. whether marriages are arranged or free)
- The rate is probably higher in cities (more opportunities) than in the countryside.
- Infidelity is probably less common among very religious Christians.
- It depends on people's personality (sociability, openness to new experiences, level of natural anxiety, etc.), which is partially hereditary, so that some lineages may suffer less infidelities than others.

30 or 40 generations gives ample time for a lineage to be affected by a non-paternity event. But not necessarily all lineages. Some lineages will have many and others none. What's more, in a family with many children the chance of a non-paternity event affecting more than one child is already much lower, and falls to almost zero when all the children are considered. That's why there will always be some lines that keep the original Y-DNA line, and inevitably some that get cuckolded.

I found about 1% of surnames belonging to Italic/Latin/Roman Y-DNA with names that could be inherited from Roman gentes. That's not a lot, but I didn't expect much more considering the potential non-paternity events, adoptions, etc. over 1500 to 2000 years. Then, even among the list I made above I expect that many will be wrong. Much more samples are needed. Once several samples consistently show the exact same deep clade matching the same surname (or a related cognomen), then we can be more confident that a ancient gens belonged to that haplogroup. What I am doing here is just preliminary work that will need to be expanded and refined over time.

[Maciamo]

Here a summary table of the Roman nomina and their presumed haplogroups. The patrician gentes are in bold.

Gens	Origin	Presumed haplogroup
*Quinctia	Alban	G2a-L497>Z1816
Cantia		G2a-L497>Z1816
Coelia/Caelia	Etruscan	G2a-L497>Z1816
Cordia		G2a-L497>Z1816
Papinia		G2a-L497>Z1816
Precia		G2a-L497>Z1816
Statia		G2a-L497>Z1816
Papia	Samnite	G2a-U1>L1264
Floria		G2a-U1>L13
Hordeonia		G2a-U1>L13
Lemonia		G2a-U1>L13
Orbilia		J2a-L70
Tiberiana		J2a-L70
Aulia		J2a-Z438
Licinia	Etruscan?	J2a-Z438
Lucia		J2a-Z438
Decimia	Samnite	J2b
Matia		J2b2-L283>Z38241
Flaminia	Roman?	R1b-L51>L151>CTS4528
Cilnia	Etruscan	R1b-L51>L151>CTS4528
*Cominia	Aurunci?	R1b-L51>Z2118
*Junia	Roman	R1b-L51>Z2118
*Cornelia	Roman	R1b-U152>L2>ZZ56
*Claudia	Sabine	R1b-U152>Z193
*Marcia	Sabine	R1b-U152>Z193
*Papiria	Alban	R1b-U152>Z193
*Pinaria	Sabine	R1b-U152>Z193
*Postumia	Roman	R1b-U152>Z193
*Valeria	Sabine	R1b-U152>Z193
Aelia	Roman?	R1b-U152>Z193
Hortensia	Roman?	R1b-U152>Z193
Hostia		R1b-U152>Z193
Pomponia	Sabine	R1b-U152>Z193
Rania	Sabine	R1b-U152>Z193
Caninia	Tusculum	R1b-U152>Z56>Z43>S1523>BY38816
Antia	Roman?	R1b-U152>Z56>Z43>BY3544
Suetonia		R1b-U152>Z56>Z43>BY3544
*Servilia	Alban	R1b-U152>Z56>Z43>S47>S4634
Plinia		R1b-U152>Z56>Z43>S47>S4634
Caecinia	Etruscan	R1b-U152>Z56>Z43>Z145>CTS6389
Campatia		R1b-U152>Z56>Z43>Z145>PF6577

Out of the 10 patrician gentes listed so far, 8 presumably belong to R1b-U152, one to R1b-Z2118 and one to G2a-L497>Z1816, which I had long predicted to be Celto-Italic and closely linked historically to the propagation of R1b-U152. So there is consistency with what the expected Y-DNA lineages of Italic people. But it is even more remarkable that the 6 families of Sabine origin (4 patrician and 2 plebeian) all belong to R1b-U152>Z193 !

Also consistently, all the J2a-L70 and J2b2 surnames that I could potentially match to Roman gentes belong to minor gentes, except the gens Licinia, an originally obscure plebeian gens which rose to prominence in the late Republic.

[torzio]

@Maciamo
@Torzio


For example, speaking of common surnames, the Latin suffix -arius indicates a relationship of dependence / connection, Bizzocchi always explains. In the Tuscan language it is normally transformed into "-aio", but in other areas such as the Veneto area the ending changes to "-aro", or to "-ier" or "-er". Here then a surname indicating a profession, that of baker (in late Latin "furnarius") becomes "Fornaro", up to the more extreme types "Fornasier" / "Fornaser". Or there are surnames that derive from the name of a profession in dialect. For example, with "Marangoni" / "Marangon" there are certainly carpenters or ax masters. (in other cases still the Latin nexus is encrypted, see the Sardinian surname "Frau" which means blacksmith, derived from the Latin "faber", locally evolved into "Frabu" / Frau ".)


In conclusion: my "caveat" lies simply in the fact that already here in Italy it becomes extremely complex to study these phenomena, because different traditions and cultural elements of secular significance merge, often asynchronous, including the different use (or familiarity ) of Latin (already highly regionalized and not very homogeneous in antiquity) and of the derivative onomastic aspects. I don't know much about what happens outside of Italy on these studies, but some more methodological shrewdness is never out of place.

I agree

other Surnames from professions
Sartor = Tailor
Moecan = crab catcher from the word for crab, Moeca

then there are christian names which became surnames
Zorzi = from the christian name for Giorgio, George
Polo = from Paolo
Zane = from Giovanni

[torzio]

Here a summary table of the Roman nomina and their presumed haplogroups. The patrician gentes are in bold.

Gens	Origin	Haplogroup
Quinctia	Alban	G2a-L497>Z1816
Cantia		G2a-L497>Z1816
Coelia/Caelia	Etruscan	G2a-L497>Z1816
Cordia		G2a-L497>Z1816
Papinia		G2a-L497>Z1816
Precia		G2a-L497>Z1816
Statia		G2a-L497>Z1816
Papia	Samnite	G2a-U1>L1264
Floria		G2a-U1>L13
Hordeonia		G2a-U1>L13
Lemonia		G2a-U1>L13
Orbilia		J2a-L70
Tiberiana		J2a-L70
Aulia		J2a-Z438
Licinia	Etruscan?	J2a-Z438
Lucia		J2a-Z438
Decimia	Samnite	J2b
Matia		J2b2-L283>Z38241
Cornelia	Roman	R1b-L2>ZZ56
Cominia	Aurunci?	R1b-L51>Z2118
Caninia	Tusculum	R1b-S1523>BY38816
Caecinia	Etruscan	R1b-Z145>CTS6389
Campatia		R1b-Z145>PF6577
Claudia	Sabine	R1b-Z193
Marcia	Sabine	R1b-Z193
Papiria	Alban	R1b-Z193
Pinaria	Sabine	R1b-Z193
Postumia	Roman	R1b-Z193
Valeria	Sabine	R1b-Z193
Hortensia	Roman?	R1b-Z193
Hostia		R1b-Z193
Pomponia	Sabine	R1b-Z193
Rania	Sabine	R1b-Z193
Servilia	Alban	R1b-Z43>S47>S4634
Plinia		R1b-Z43>S47>S4634

Out of the 10 patrician gentes listed so far, 8 presumably belong to R1b-U152, one to R1b-Z2118 and one to G2a-L497>Z1816, which I had long predicted to be Celto-Italic and closely linked historically to the propagation of R1b-U152. So there is consistency with what the expected Y-DNA lineages of Italic people. But it is even more remarkable that the 6 families of Sabine origin (4 patrician and 2 plebeian) all belong to R1b-U152>Z193 !

Also consistently, all the J2a-L70 and J2b2 surnames that I could potentially match to Roman gentes belong to minor gentes, except the gens Licinia, an originally obscure plebeian gens which rose to prominence in the late Republic.

I presented this before ............a paper which goes into detail about G2a-L497 clearly states it is a tyrolese and coastal northern romanian marker ............a very high % has this marker

https://www.fsigenetics.com/article/...136-1/fulltext

Clearly this marker entered Italy via Raetia e Vindelicia lands

[kmak]

Here a summary table of the Roman nomina and their presumed haplogroups. The patrician gentes are in bold.

Gens	Origin	Haplogroup
Quinctia	Alban	G2a-L497>Z1816
Cantia		G2a-L497>Z1816
Coelia/Caelia	Etruscan	G2a-L497>Z1816
Cordia		G2a-L497>Z1816
Papinia		G2a-L497>Z1816
Precia		G2a-L497>Z1816
Statia		G2a-L497>Z1816
Papia	Samnite	G2a-U1>L1264
Floria		G2a-U1>L13
Hordeonia		G2a-U1>L13
Lemonia		G2a-U1>L13
Orbilia		J2a-L70
Tiberiana		J2a-L70
Aulia		J2a-Z438
Licinia	Etruscan?	J2a-Z438
Lucia		J2a-Z438
Decimia	Samnite	J2b
Matia		J2b2-L283>Z38241
Cornelia	Roman	R1b-L2>ZZ56
Cominia	Aurunci?	R1b-L51>Z2118
Caninia	Tusculum	R1b-S1523>BY38816
Caecinia	Etruscan	R1b-Z145>CTS6389
Campatia		R1b-Z145>PF6577
Claudia	Sabine	R1b-Z193
Marcia	Sabine	R1b-Z193
Papiria	Alban	R1b-Z193
Pinaria	Sabine	R1b-Z193
Postumia	Roman	R1b-Z193
Valeria	Sabine	R1b-Z193
Hortensia	Roman?	R1b-Z193
Hostia		R1b-Z193
Pomponia	Sabine	R1b-Z193
Rania	Sabine	R1b-Z193
Servilia	Alban	R1b-Z43>S47>S4634
Plinia		R1b-Z43>S47>S4634

Out of the 10 patrician gentes listed so far, 8 presumably belong to R1b-U152, one to R1b-Z2118 and one to G2a-L497>Z1816, which I had long predicted to be Celto-Italic and closely linked historically to the propagation of R1b-U152. So there is consistency with what the expected Y-DNA lineages of Italic people. But it is even more remarkable that the 6 families of Sabine origin (4 patrician and 2 plebeian) all belong to R1b-U152>Z193 !

Also consistently, all the J2a-L70 and J2b2 surnames that I could potentially match to Roman gentes belong to minor gentes, except the gens Licinia, an originally obscure plebeian gens which rose to prominence in the late Republic.

I wonder Y DNA of Lucius Junius Brutus founder of Roman Republic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucius_Junius_Brutus

[Joey37]

Wow, that's a lot of G2. Especially compared to the J2, whose spread in north-western Europe is often attributed to Romans.

[dominique_nuit]

There doesn’t appear to be any G2a-CTS342 among the original Romans? Only U1 and L497 ?

Also, perhaps a question for Torzio, but what does “La” prefix mean in southern Italian surnames, in particular Calabrian? I recall reading that it’s a fairly recent innovation.

[torzio]

There doesn’t appear to be any G2a-CTS342 among the original Romans? Only U1 and L497 ?

Also, perhaps a question for Torzio, but what does “La” prefix mean in southern Italian surnames, in particular Calabrian? I recall reading that it’s a fairly recent innovation.

La = The

example ...La Russa means the Red ( could be a red headed woman )...........but it is mostly created for women without a husband ( single women with child in the early days when surnames where introduced) ..............in the North , more common is Dalla instead of La

La, In the south , it was also used as an orphan dropped/abandoned off at the church by the mother..........in the north it was Del Pio ..............or under Venice it was Del Pio Luogo

In the north ( medieval times ) it was also used for foreigners giving them an Italian surname .....like, the family named Scaliger, the german rulers of Verona....where called La Scala by italians ( artificial made up name )

[Maciamo]

Wow, that's a lot of G2. Especially compared to the J2, whose spread in north-western Europe is often attributed to Romans.

That's because J2a was not one of the original Indo-European haplogroup in the founding Italic population of the ancient Romans. J2a was presumably assimilated from neighbouring Etruscan and Greek populations. By the time the Romans conquered Gaul and Britain there would have been many J2a men among the Romans (be them legionaries, administrators or merchants).

[Maciamo]

I wonder Y DNA of Lucius Junius Brutus founder of Roman Republic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucius_Junius_Brutus

I couldn't find any modern surname sounding like Junius (June, Juny?) in the FTNDA projects. But while looking for the existence of a anglicised form of Brutus, I found that the surname Brute exists in Britain at the border of England and Wales. Brutus could also have become Bruto in late Latin, then Bruton in English, and that name also exists and is more common. Better still, there is a FTDNA project! 70 of the 72 members are R1b. Few tested for deep clades, but among those who did, several belong to R1b-L51>Z2118 (aka PF7589). Two individuals from Cheshire (around the major Roman town of Deva Victrix, aka modern Chester) share the common deep clade is Y40983, which was formed 1150 years ago and descend from a single ancestor 450 years ago. That's for the British Bruton individuals. If we go up the phylogenetic tree, we find that the common ancestor in Roman times they would have carried the SNP Y5141 (TMRCA 2300 years) and outside Britain this clade is found only in Italy! Bingo!

So based on this evidence, it seems possible that the Brutti belong to R1b-L51>Z2118>Z2116>Y5149>Y5141. Since, as far as I know, Brutus is a cognomen only found in the gens Junia, it is indeed possible that Lucius Junius Brutus belonged to that clade too. To confirm this it would be good to find other surnames derived from Junius or one of the cognomina linked to that gens (Brutus, Bubulcus, Pera, Pennus, Silanus, Blaesus, Rusticus) and see if they also belong to that clade. Many variants of Junius exist in England (June, Junes, Juny) but are all rare and I couldn't find any Y-DNA project. Over time some Junes might have become Jones as people tend to change unfamiliar names into familiar ones. However the vast majority of Jones belong to the Celtic R1b-L21 and so far I haven't found any Jones who were R1b-Z2118.

[Ahmed]

Here a summary table of the Roman nomina and their presumed haplogroups. The patrician gentes are in bold.

Gens	Origin	Haplogroup
Quinctia	Alban	G2a-L497>Z1816
Cantia		G2a-L497>Z1816
Coelia/Caelia	Etruscan	G2a-L497>Z1816
Cordia		G2a-L497>Z1816
Papinia		G2a-L497>Z1816
Precia		G2a-L497>Z1816
Statia		G2a-L497>Z1816
Papia	Samnite	G2a-U1>L1264
Floria		G2a-U1>L13
Hordeonia		G2a-U1>L13
Lemonia		G2a-U1>L13
Orbilia		J2a-L70
Tiberiana		J2a-L70
Aulia		J2a-Z438
Licinia	Etruscan?	J2a-Z438
Lucia		J2a-Z438
Decimia	Samnite	J2b
Matia		J2b2-L283>Z38241
Cornelia	Roman	R1b-L2>ZZ56
Cominia	Aurunci?	R1b-L51>Z2118
Caninia	Tusculum	R1b-S1523>BY38816
Caecinia	Etruscan	R1b-Z145>CTS6389
Campatia		R1b-Z145>PF6577
Claudia	Sabine	R1b-Z193
Marcia	Sabine	R1b-Z193
Papiria	Alban	R1b-Z193
Pinaria	Sabine	R1b-Z193
Postumia	Roman	R1b-Z193
Valeria	Sabine	R1b-Z193
Hortensia	Roman?	R1b-Z193
Hostia		R1b-Z193
Pomponia	Sabine	R1b-Z193
Rania	Sabine	R1b-Z193
Servilia	Alban	R1b-Z43>S47>S4634
Plinia		R1b-Z43>S47>S4634

Out of the 10 patrician gentes listed so far, 8 presumably belong to R1b-U152, one to R1b-Z2118 and one to G2a-L497>Z1816, which I had long predicted to be Celto-Italic and closely linked historically to the propagation of R1b-U152. So there is consistency with what the expected Y-DNA lineages of Italic people. But it is even more remarkable that the 6 families of Sabine origin (4 patrician and 2 plebeian) all belong to R1b-U152>Z193 !

Also consistently, all the J2a-L70 and J2b2 surnames that I could potentially match to Roman gentes belong to minor gentes, except the gens Licinia, an originally obscure plebeian gens which rose to prominence in the late Republic.

This is interesting. Could you please advise if these results are shared in any DNA website or it can be compared to Big y results to find matches. Thanks

[Maciamo]

Here is another branch of R1b that I haven't investigated yet.

R1b-L51>L151>S1200 (CTS4528)

• ​Flaming (Prussia/Poland) + Fleming (UK) => both could derive from the gens Flaminia.
• Kellum (unknown origin but surname exist in England, though very rare) => maybe from Chilo, a cognomen of the gens Flaminia above.
• Aker (England)=> from the cognomen Acer? (found notably in the gens Sedatia of Gallic origin)
• Kienle (Germany) => possibly a corruption of Cilnia (to Cilne => Cinle => Kienle), an Etruscan gens
• Marcelis (Netherlands) + Merkel (Germany) => possible corruption of Marcellus, a cognomen of the gens Claudia and Quinctia, among others.
• Carnley (North Midlands, England) => possibly a corruption of Cornelius
• Suhre (Rhineland, Germany) => from the cognomen Sura (found in the gens Cornelia and Licinia)

Note that Carnley and Suhre both fall under the same deep clade S1200>S14328>BY62339 so that clade is another potential candidate for the gens Cornelia.

[Salento]

Here is another branch of R1b that I haven't investigated yet.

R1b-L51>L151>S1200 (CTS4528)

• ​Flaming (Prussia/Poland) + Fleming (UK) => both could derive from the gens Flaminia.
• Kellum (unknown origin but surname exist in England, though very rare) => maybe from Chilo, a cognomen of the gens Flaminia above.
• Aker (England)=> from the cognomen Acer? (found notably in the gens Sedatia of Gallic origin)
• Kienle (Germany) => possibly a corruption from Cilnia (to Cilne => Cinle => Kienle), an Etruscan gens
• Marcelis (Netherlands) + Merkel (Germany) => possible corruption of Marcellus, a cognomen of the gens Claudia and Quinctia, among others.

There are also Johnson’s with that Haplogroup (R-CTS4528).

Some came to the USA from Cornwall to Boston MA area in about 1626 AD :)

[Angela]

There are also Johnson’s with that Haplogroup (R-CTS4528).

Some came to the USA from Cornwall to Boston MA area in about 1626 AD :)

I don't know if he belonged to that particular sub-lineage, but wasn't U.S. President Lyndon Johnson U-152?