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

It seems that there is some influence of Genovese/Venetian colonies in the Black Sea shores on the surnames of Greek or Hellenized residents. A small number of surnames from the North Thrace, Eastern Thrace areas carry Italian/Latin roots, names like Tzoundas or Pinelis. Remember that the Venetian and Genovese were granted broad preferential trading privileges throughout the Byzantine Empire after one of the Crusades (4th?) and both Genoa and Venice availed themselves of those privileges.
 
I understand that the majority of surnames have changed since the Late Antiquity. But most does not necessarily mean all. My method was to search the FTDNA projects within haplogroups that were confirmed to be found among ancient Latins, or that I predicted will be found among them (note that I had already correctly predicted that ancient Italics would belong to R1b-U152>Z56 and R1b-U152>Z193 many years ago). So these lineages are very probably of Roman/Latin/Italic origin, even outside of Italy. The difficulty was to find modern surnames that "might" have survived through the ages, even if in heavily corrupted form. When it comes to R1b-Z56, R1b-Z193 and R1b-L2>ZZ56, I have only found 33 surnames that could possibly qualify after searching the U152 project and all national projects for western Europe. That's barely 1% of all the current surnames of people with probable Italic Y-DNA. Really not a lot.

You say that Italian surnames were consolidated in 1564 because of the obligation to keep baptism registries. But that's only for written forms. It does not mean that surnames didn't exist before and that they were not inherited from father to son as always before. It's just that they were more likely to "evolve" like the language, with Latin names like Caecinus becoming Cechino or Cecchini or something else.



This is true especially for Spain, Portugal, Scandinavia and Slavic countries. There are exceptions like Fulfisk in Scandinavia, which I listed among the R1b-Z193 and that do not sound Germanic at all (apart from the Germanised -isk ending) and therefore are more likely to be among the ancient Roman names that ending up one way of another in Scandinavia, perhaps like the Italian Jews of Antiquity ended up in Central and Eastern Europe a few centuries ago.

In countries like the UK, France, Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany, many families can trace back their ancestors to the Middle Ages. My oldest genealogical lineage that is not from the high nobility (medieval counts, dukes, etc.) goes back to the early 11th century and that surname hasn't changed in nearly 1000 years. The same is true for British families of Norman origin. The oldest Belgian family can trace its pedigree to the 9th century. And that's just for written records that have luckily survived to this day. That doesn't mean that family names originated at that time. Just that the administration didn't keep records beforehand or that they have been lost.



I know. That's why I didn't list all those non-Italian emperors who adopted the names of famous Roman gentes in my list of prominent Roman gentes. But that's irrelevant for this thread as I only select surnames among the people who have Italic Y-DNA. I am not looking for Latin-sounding names among R1a, R1b-U106, I1, I2-Din and other obviously non-Italic haplogroups!



I completely agree. Many people changed their surnames because it was socially or culturally advantageous to do so. When people converted to Christianity, many people chose to adopt Christian surnames to replace their pagan ones. When Germanic people became the new rulers and nobility, some people dropped their old family name to adopt Germanic ones either to socio-political reasons, or simply to "fit in". Let's not forget all the non-paternity events that would have caused a lot of discrepancies between Y-DNA lineage and surnames. The advantage of having Y-DNA is that we can already reject all the Latin surnames with Germanic Y-DNA (e.g. medieval nobles of Germanic descent raping peasant girls or using their jus primae noctis).




The Roman tradition for adopted people or servants who adopted their master's cognomen was to change the -us ending to -ianus. So a servant of the Aemilii family would become an Aemilianus, and over time Emiliano or Emilani in modern central and northern Italy. In southern Italy though, these names became "Di/De + surname", as in D'Emiliani, Di Marco, Di Tullio...



Yes, but these cases are very rare. Anyway I am not saying that my method is fool-proof. We can only suppose, never be certain. Ideally we should find people from different regions and countries with similar surnames (or derived from cognomina of the same gens) and exactly the same deep clade (with a TMRCA within 2500 years). For example within a same clade I found someone in England with the surname Curtis who matched an Italian with the surname Curti or Corti and a third German individual named Curtius (the surname exist in the Rhineland and South Germany, though rare), then we would have a solid case for the gens Curtia belonging to that deep clade. For example, so far I found 3 individuals with surnames matching cognomina of the gens Cornelia who all belonged to R1b-L2>ZZ56. Evene better, all the patrician gentes of Sabine origin seem to fit within R1b-Z193! That cannot be just a coincidence.

De + surname is the French and Spanish system and applies in Italy historically, where french or Aragon/Castilian owned/ruled Italian lands ....................the correct italian system is Di for a person and Da for a place ( ie Da Vinci,....from Vinci ) ......or D'Surname, which is same as Di

Do is the portuguese system
 
@ Maciamo, surely there will also have been some lucky ones who could have kept memory of its ancient-Roman predecessors even during the Middle Ages. Perhaps some aristocrats, but not even for the Colonna of Rome themselves, descendants of the Counts of Tusculum, who boasted an origin from the gens Julia, it was possible to document illustrious predecessors before the IX century. Many more - even among ordinary people - adopted new onomastic and cognominal strategies precisely between the end of antiquity and the early modern age. In my opinion, fixing on the persistence or not of names is useful to delineate some historical, social and cultural phenomena, but it can be a deadly pitfall to identify the ethnos of individuals or groups.
In the case of Italy, surnames are fixed and consolidated only after the relative provisions of the Council of Trento in 1564, when parish priests are obliged to keep careful note of baptisms in parish registers. In any case, it was a gradual process, if we think that in some rural areas the surnames were even fixed in the XIX century. Before the Tridentine Council and for at least a thousand years the situation of names was absolutely magmatic.


In many European countries, surnames are often patronymic forms. In Italy especially in northern and central Italy they end in "-i", derived from the genitive of a proper name or a nickname, or - according to a more recent theory - of the "plural" referred to and extended to the whole family group , always modeled on the name / nickname of a progenitor.
Now it is true that the choice of the proper name tends to mature in a precise ethnic context (in southern Italy no one would suddenly start baptizing a daughter "Dragana" instead of "Diletta", even if it has basically the same meaning). But let's talk about a situation extremely permeable to other influences and influences, even in a short time or a few generations.
The indigenous people of a region, almost always for reasons of prestige or for intent to assimilate towards their rulers, can assume relatively quickly non-native forms of proper names - and therefore in turn originate surnames with non-local roots. Already the "barbarians" assimilated in the ranks of Rome in the imperial and late ancient ages bore absolutely Latin and / or Romanized names. In the Gallo-Roman world and along all the current territories of continental Europe that you mention, belonging to the Roman Empire, I believe this was almost the norm. Flavius ​​Victor, military general under Constantius II and Valens, was a Sarmatian; Aetius himself was perhaps of Gothic or Scythic stock for his father (who was still called Gaudentius!), and was only Roman / Italic for his mother.


Even the advent of Christianity has considerably renewed the heritage of onomastics, but the assumption of names of biblical-christian tradition, of apostles or prophets, does not immediately make their bearers or the surnames that derive from them Jewish or Middle Eastern.
Here too motivations of social prestige or religious devotion come into play, not infrequently combining among them: many Gothic priests of the Aryan clergy of Ravenna in the mid-sixth century have names of Jewish-Christian origin. In the same years, a lady in Como named Guntelda gave birth to a son called Basilius, a greek name like few others, perhaps exactly at the time when the Byzantines took power in Italy. But Basilius' son goes back to his name Guntio, probably because the Lombards were coming, and re-germanising the name could become more convenient. In essence, in the transition between late Antiquity and the early Middle Ages it is quite certain that whoever wore a Celtic or Germanic coinage name was not an ethnic Roman, while those who adopted Roman names could encrypt an extra-Italic origin, even a recent one (a phenomenon that continued for a long time : see again Bonifacius, Marquis of Tuscany in the middle of the 9th century, who was a Bavarian).


With the Lombards and the Franks arriving in Italy a little later, the Germanic onomastic system clears customs among us and for the same reasons, but inverse to the previous ones, the Italics who are gradually becoming Italian begin to assume names (and later surnames) of origin North European. Now the prestige comes from the new lords who came from the north, and obviously the phenomenon is more accentuated in the regions of the North and Center of the Peninsula, which were directly dominated by them. Italics with a Germanic patina, exactly like a few centuries earlier we found Celts and Germans somewhat latinized along the Rhine and Danubian limes of the Empire.

The fact that cognominal systems derived from the names of the ancient Romans persist in Central Italy doesn't surprise me: we are however talking about that area where the ethnic Romans were indigenous, so either by blood or by direct cultural irradiation it would have been impossible to supplant completely the local onomastic tradition, however courtly. (It may also be the case that we are talking about families of humble origin, but whose ancestors found themselves in the service of landowners and gentlemen from whom they borrowed the name ...).


Other times things get even more complicated. Keep in mind that sometimes the maternal line is the one that has the pre-eminence and can change the name / surname of the family irreversibly, also here almost always for reasons of greater social prestige. Our greatest poet, Dante, in the "Divine Comedy" often made reference and pride to the Roman ancestry of Florentines like him. He was a descendant by paternal line from a Tuscan / Central-Italian aristocratic family, the Elisei, but Dante's great-great-grandfather, Cacciaguida, married a lady from an equally and perhaps even more illustrious family, that one of the "Aldighieri", originally from the Po Valley, from which the descendants then took the surname. Here is another Germanic surname, which is not said to be a spy of authentic Nordic roots, for the same reasons mentioned above.


I don't want to go too far, I haven't focused on other numerous categories of surnames that have imposed themselves over the centuries. Anything is possible in this world, but thinking that ancient names and surnames may have been handed down completely unscathed without considering the heavy and complex medieval passage is at least very risky. I attach a small contribution (in Italian) by Carla Marcato who teaches at the Udine University to give an idea of ​​the extraordinary complexity of this phenomenon

https://edizionicafoscari.unive.it/...xNAeyhZD0Lax9nI_t_WRG6Rir48VxdraipzAl8AsWn5Gk

I endings , are usually Tuscan endings ..........there are zero i endings in NE Italy in the past .........they are used later to mean many.....as an example
Ros ( popular very old surname from Ceneda ( now called Vittorio Veneto )) ....meaning Red ..............from this we got Rosso, Di Ros etc....but later got Rossi due to heritary venetian laws , which where similar to German and English laws, where the first son got everything and other sons got zero, but, in Venetian law, once the first son got his father inheritance , other siblings had to alter their surname slightly.....so as an example from a "noble" venetian family named Bon ( meaning Good )we got
Bono
Bonetto
Bonato
and many others , from siblings moving forward with their families

i endings in NE italy in the old times only meant "many" .......the Rosso families if they had many sons, where commented as the Rossi

Of course one, needs to avoid the 1870 peoples movement in Italy by the kings laws and the more volatile Mussolini displacement and moving of families in the 1920'S
 
It seems that there is some influence of Genovese/Venetian colonies in the Black Sea shores on the surnames of Greek or Hellenized residents. A small number of surnames from the North Thrace, Eastern Thrace areas carry Italian/Latin roots, names like Tzoundas or Pinelis. Remember that the Venetian and Genovese were granted broad preferential trading privileges throughout the Byzantine Empire after one of the Crusades (4th?) and both Genoa and Venice availed themselves of those privileges.

this can help

click town for some history

http://romeartlover.tripod.com/Venezia.html
 
De + surname is the French and Spanish system and applies in Italy historically, where french or Aragon/Castilian owned/ruled Italian lands ....................the correct italian system is Di for a person and Da for a place ( ie Da Vinci,....from Vinci ) ......or D'Surname, which is same as Di

Do is the portuguese system

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.
 
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
 
Last edited:
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
 
Grandma was De Vitis :)
 
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
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Except most patrician families in Italy and elsewhere in the Roman Empire were slaughtered by the barbarian hordes.
 
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 :)
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
@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/media/pdf/books/978-88-6969-111-9/978-88-6969-111-9-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
@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.
 
Here a summary table of the Roman nomina and their presumed haplogroups. The patrician gentes are in bold.

GensOriginPresumed haplogroup
*QuinctiaAlbanG2a-L497>Z1816
CantiaG2a-L497>Z1816
Coelia/CaeliaEtruscanG2a-L497>Z1816
CordiaG2a-L497>Z1816
PapiniaG2a-L497>Z1816
PreciaG2a-L497>Z1816
StatiaG2a-L497>Z1816
PapiaSamniteG2a-U1>L1264
FloriaG2a-U1>L13
HordeoniaG2a-U1>L13
LemoniaG2a-U1>L13
OrbiliaJ2a-L70
TiberianaJ2a-L70
AuliaJ2a-Z438
LiciniaEtruscan?J2a-Z438
LuciaJ2a-Z438
DecimiaSamniteJ2b
MatiaJ2b2-L283>Z38241
FlaminiaRoman?R1b-L51>L151>CTS4528
CilniaEtruscanR1b-L51>L151>CTS4528
*CominiaAurunci?R1b-L51>Z2118
*JuniaRomanR1b-L51>Z2118
*CorneliaRomanR1b-U152>L2>ZZ56
*ClaudiaSabineR1b-U152>Z193
*MarciaSabineR1b-U152>Z193
*PapiriaAlbanR1b-U152>Z193
*PinariaSabineR1b-U152>Z193
*PostumiaRomanR1b-U152>Z193
*ValeriaSabineR1b-U152>Z193
AeliaRoman?R1b-U152>Z193
HortensiaRoman?R1b-U152>Z193
HostiaR1b-U152>Z193
PomponiaSabineR1b-U152>Z193
RaniaSabineR1b-U152>Z193
CaniniaTusculumR1b-U152>Z56>Z43>S1523>BY38816
AntiaRoman?R1b-U152>Z56>Z43>BY3544
SuetoniaR1b-U152>Z56>Z43>BY3544
*ServiliaAlbanR1b-U152>Z56>Z43>S47>S4634
PliniaR1b-U152>Z56>Z43>S47>S4634
CaeciniaEtruscanR1b-U152>Z56>Z43>Z145>CTS6389
CampatiaR1b-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.
 
Last edited:
@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
 
Here a summary table of the Roman nomina and their presumed haplogroups. The patrician gentes are in bold.

GensOriginHaplogroup
QuinctiaAlbanG2a-L497>Z1816
CantiaG2a-L497>Z1816
Coelia/CaeliaEtruscanG2a-L497>Z1816
CordiaG2a-L497>Z1816
PapiniaG2a-L497>Z1816
PreciaG2a-L497>Z1816
StatiaG2a-L497>Z1816
PapiaSamniteG2a-U1>L1264
FloriaG2a-U1>L13
HordeoniaG2a-U1>L13
LemoniaG2a-U1>L13
OrbiliaJ2a-L70
TiberianaJ2a-L70
AuliaJ2a-Z438
LiciniaEtruscan?J2a-Z438
LuciaJ2a-Z438
DecimiaSamniteJ2b
MatiaJ2b2-L283>Z38241
CorneliaRomanR1b-L2>ZZ56
CominiaAurunci?R1b-L51>Z2118
CaniniaTusculumR1b-S1523>BY38816
CaeciniaEtruscanR1b-Z145>CTS6389
CampatiaR1b-Z145>PF6577
ClaudiaSabineR1b-Z193
MarciaSabineR1b-Z193
PapiriaAlbanR1b-Z193
PinariaSabineR1b-Z193
PostumiaRomanR1b-Z193
ValeriaSabineR1b-Z193
HortensiaRoman?R1b-Z193
HostiaR1b-Z193
PomponiaSabineR1b-Z193
RaniaSabineR1b-Z193
ServiliaAlbanR1b-Z43>S47>S4634
PliniaR1b-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/S1872-4973(13)00136-1/fulltext

Clearly this marker entered Italy via Raetia e Vindelicia lands
 

This thread has been viewed 41783 times.

Back
Top