Identifying the Roman subclades of J2a1

Maciamo

Veteran member
Admin
Messages
10,097
Reaction score
3,537
Points
113
Location
Lothier
Ethnic group
Italo-celto-germanic
In 2013 I explained in my Genetic history of the Italians that the ancient Italic tribes, including the Latins/Romans would have belonged primarily to R1b-U152 (especially Z56). I mentioned that the original Latins of the Roman Republic would also have carried G2a-L140 (specifically the L13, L1264 and Z1816 subclades) as well as some yet unidentified J2a subclades. I have just updated the phylogenetic tree of Y-haplogroup J2 and I came across a branch that appeared to be the ideal candidate for the Italic J2a1. That branch is Z435, immediately downstream of L70.

All L70 carriers today descend from a single patrilineal ancestor who lived about 5,000 years ago, when the Proto-Indo-Europeans started invading Central Europe from the Pontic Steppe. Indeed, a lot of J2a1-L70 are now found in Northeast Europe and Central Asia, which suggests an Indo-European dispersal from the steppes.

Z435 has a TMRCA of only 3,100 years, which corresponds roughly to the timing of the invasion of Italian peninsula by Italic tribes from the Alps. Z435 has numerous subclades of its own, and most have been identified in central Italy. The PF5456 subclade is barely 2500 years old, and would have emerged and propagated after the founding of Rome. Outside Italy, it is now found in such varied places as Spain, France, England, Belgium, southern Germany, Austria, Bulgaria or Tunisia, all regions colonised by the Romans. It would be very hard to explain how this 2500 year-old clade spread so far and wide around Europe if it weren't for the Romans.

Z2177, another subclade of Z435, is a bit under 3,000 years old and, although rare, it is found today in places like Tuscany, Sardinia and Spain, which also suggests a Roman connection.


Here is the relevant section of the J2a1-L26 tree:

J2-PF5160-tree.png
 
wikipedia links 2 possible cultures to the Italic people, both linked with Bell Beakers :

ca 3.5 ka

In the mid-2nd millennium BC, the Terramare culture[11] developed in the Po Valley. The Terramare culture takes its name from the black earth (terra marna) residue of settlement mounds, which have long served the fertilizing needs of local farmers. They were still hunters, but had domesticated animals; they were fairly skillful metallurgists, casting bronze in moulds of stone and clay, and they were also agriculturists, cultivating beans, the vine, wheat and flax. The Latino-Faliscan people have been associated with this culture, especially by the archaeologist Luigi Pigorini.

ca 3 ka

From the late 2nd millennium to the early 1st millennium BC, the Late Bronze Age Proto-Villanovan culture, related to the Central European Urnfield culture, dominated the peninsula and replaced the preceding Apennine culture. The Proto-Villanovans practiced cremation and buried the ashes of their dead in pottery urns of a distinctive double-cone shape. Generally speaking, Proto-Villanovan settlements have been found in almost the whole Italian peninsula from Veneto to eastern Sicily, although they were most numerous in the northern-central part of Italy. The most important settlements excavated are those of Frattesina in Veneto region, Bismantova in Emilia-Romagna and near the Monti della Tolfa, north of Rome. The Osco-Umbrians, the Veneti, and possibly the Latino-Faliscans too, have been associated with this culture.


IMO the most probable origin would be the Carpathian Basin where local tribes admixed with new arivals from the Pontic steppe
 
wikipedia links 2 possible cultures to the Italic people, both linked with Bell Beakers :

ca 3.5 ka

In the mid-2nd millennium BC, the Terramare culture[11] developed in the Po Valley. The Terramare culture takes its name from the black earth (terra marna) residue of settlement mounds, which have long served the fertilizing needs of local farmers. They were still hunters, but had domesticated animals; they were fairly skillful metallurgists, casting bronze in moulds of stone and clay, and they were also agriculturists, cultivating beans, the vine, wheat and flax. The Latino-Faliscan people have been associated with this culture, especially by the archaeologist Luigi Pigorini.

ca 3 ka

From the late 2nd millennium to the early 1st millennium BC, the Late Bronze Age Proto-Villanovan culture, related to the Central European Urnfield culture, dominated the peninsula and replaced the preceding Apennine culture. The Proto-Villanovans practiced cremation and buried the ashes of their dead in pottery urns of a distinctive double-cone shape. Generally speaking, Proto-Villanovan settlements have been found in almost the whole Italian peninsula from Veneto to eastern Sicily, although they were most numerous in the northern-central part of Italy. The most important settlements excavated are those of Frattesina in Veneto region, Bismantova in Emilia-Romagna and near the Monti della Tolfa, north of Rome. The Osco-Umbrians, the Veneti, and possibly the Latino-Faliscans too, have been associated with this culture.


IMO the most probable origin would be the Carpathian Basin where local tribes admixed with new arivals from the Pontic steppe


How old is this documentation ?............the latest I know is that Villanova culture furthest Northern boundary was in the vicinity of modern Bologna

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Villanovan_culture
data updated September 2016
 
Proto-Villanovan spread all over Italy, but followed by Villanovan properly only in northern and central Italy.

Proto-Villanovan pffh a fictitious name to say - the coming of the italic people into Italy.........there are many cultures in Italy which where IE peoples before the proto-Villanovan...........this "proto" is an excuse because the scholars where too lazy to see that:


Remedello II - [2900 - 2500 BC] - Copper Age - North Italy (Alps/Po Valley)
first expansion of Indo-Europeans; mixed Civilization;

Terremare - [1500 - 1100 BC] - Bronze Age - North Italy (Po Valley)
first substantial wave of Indo-Europeans (Umbrians) via Swiss lake-dwellings

Villanova I - [1200 - 900 BC] - Bronze Age - North Italy (Po Valley)
part of Urnfield Culture Complex; Umbrian - Pelasgian (Tyrsenoi) Hybrid;


Villanova II - [900 - 700 BC] - Iron Age - North & Central Italy (Po Valley/Appenines/Tuscany)
emergence of Etruscan Civilization (Tyrsenoi Dominant);
extensive contacts to Greek Colonies (Magna Graecia) Alphabet/Mythology/Pottery


There are more I can give you
 
I doubt that Terramare had anything to do with Italic people. I have always associated the Italics with the Villanovan culture.

However it is not impossible that some Proto-Italo-Celts reached the Po valley by 1700 BCE and created a hybrid culture by mixing with the indigenous populations, a bit like a piecemeal colonisation of the Iberian peninsula by R1b tribes between 1800 and 1200 BCE. In both cases R1b people would have been a small minority, possibly a ruling class that adopted the culture and language of the conquered populations. Over the centuries they would have progressively changed the Y-chromosomal landscape of the conquered regions, although with a minimal autosomal impact. That's how the Basque and Iberian tribes would have acquired R1b lineages without becoming Indo-European speakers.

The same could have happened in northern Italy during the Terramare period. That would explain why R1b is considerably higher in northern Italy, especially in the Po valley, and why there is a greater diversity of U152 subclades as well. In Tuscany, Umbria, Latium and Campania the Z56 clade of R1b-U152 is dominant, while in northern Italy it is mixed with Z36 and L2, but also L21 and DF27, which are virtually absent from central Italy. Some might have come with later Celtic migrations, but Celts were too few in numbers to have increased the percentage of R1b so much in northern Italy.
 
But Remendello has no R1b in any findings of the ancient samples............only 100% - I2a1 , Remendello ( modern eastern Lombardy )

Maybe they where indigenous to north-Italy or either went to Sardinia or came from Sardinia
 
Proto-Villanovan pffh a fictitious name to say - the coming of the italic people into Italy.........there are many cultures in Italy which where IE peoples before the proto-Villanovan...........this "proto" is an excuse because the scholars where too lazy to see that:


Remedello II - [2900 - 2500 BC] - Copper Age - North Italy (Alps/Po Valley)
first expansion of Indo-Europeans; mixed Civilization;

Terremare - [1500 - 1100 BC] - Bronze Age - North Italy (Po Valley)
first substantial wave of Indo-Europeans (Umbrians) via Swiss lake-dwellings

Villanova I - [1200 - 900 BC] - Bronze Age - North Italy (Po Valley)
part of Urnfield Culture Complex; Umbrian - Pelasgian (Tyrsenoi) Hybrid;


Villanova II - [900 - 700 BC] - Iron Age - North & Central Italy (Po Valley/Appenines/Tuscany)
emergence of Etruscan Civilization (Tyrsenoi Dominant);
extensive contacts to Greek Colonies (Magna Graecia) Alphabet/Mythology/Pottery


There are more I can give you
Bell beaker culture was also Indoeuropean

host immagini
 
There are indeed to many cultures in Italy to chose from.

IMO the Italic languages didn't develop in Italy, but in the Carpathian basin where both proto Italic and proto Celtic would have developped, maybe among horsebreeders 4.5 ka.
Possibly not all Italic tribes arrived in Italy at once, but in several waves.

Italic must have arived in Italy before the Etruscans.
 
Bell beaker culture was also Indoeuropean

host immagini

Looking at the distribution in northern Italy, it certainly correlates with certain maps of U-152, but it falls apart in Sicily and Sardinia, doesn't it?

Is there a source I could access for that map? The site in the Lunigiana is precisely where the majority of the statue stele can be found.

stele-lunigiana-06.gif


This is Jean Manco's stele trail, proposed years ago.
2df0f095523a8f15a29abaac515b3ec4.jpg
 
Looking at the distribution in northern Italy, it certainly correlates with certain maps of U-152, but it falls apart in Sicily and Sardinia, doesn't it?

IMO U-152 is just one of the bell beaker clades, as the earliest bell beakers are older than the TMRCA of U-152 (4.5 ka if I remeber well).
the map would be clearer if you knew which were the oldest maritime bell beakers (from Iberia) and which were the more recent continental Bell Beakers
 
Bell beaker culture was also Indoeuropean

host immagini


Can anyone actually explain BB ?

Lets see,...............LBK in BB lands, is a few thousands of years older than BB and they where farmers and pot makers.

One would think that humans regardless of time period would have developed better pots over time...............that is just human advancement.
Can we actually state that NO LBK descendants with knowledge on pot making where not involved in BB pots ?
 
In 2013 I explained in my Genetic history of the Italians that the ancient Italic tribes, including the Latins/Romans would have belonged primarily to R1b-U152 (especially Z56). I mentioned that the original Latins of the Roman Republic would also have carried G2a-L140 (specifically the L13, L1264 and Z1816 subclades) as well as some yet unidentified J2a subclades. I have just updated the phylogenetic tree of Y-haplogroup J2 and I came across a branch that appeared to be the ideal candidate for the Italic J2a1. That branch is Z435, immediately downstream of L70.

All L70 carriers today descend from a single patrilineal ancestor who lived about 5,000 years ago, when the Proto-Indo-Europeans started invading Central Europe from the Pontic Steppe. Indeed, a lot of J2a1-L70 are now found in Northeast Europe and Central Asia, which suggests an Indo-European dispersal from the steppes.

Z435 has a TMRCA of only 3,100 years, which corresponds roughly to the timing of the invasion of Italian peninsula by Italic tribes from the Alps. Z435 has numerous subclades of its own, and most have been identified in central Italy. The PF5456 subclade is barely 2500 years old, and would have emerged and propagated after the founding of Rome. Outside Italy, it is now found in such varied places as Spain, France, England, Belgium, southern Germany, Austria, Bulgaria or Tunisia, all regions colonised by the Romans. It would be very hard to explain how this 2500 year-old clade spread so far and wide around Europe if it weren't for the Romans.

Z2177, another subclade of Z435, is a bit under 3,000 years old and, although rare, it is found today in places like Tuscany, Sardinia and Spain, which also suggests a Roman connection.

Interesting, but there were several and different waves of IE migrations to Italy. The Italics are just a part of that. In your opinion, to which specific Italic tribe does J2a1 belong?


There are indeed to many cultures in Italy to chose from.

IMO the Italic languages didn't develop in Italy, but in the Carpathian basin where both proto Italic and proto Celtic would have developped, maybe among horsebreeders 4.5 ka.


Spread_of_the_Indo_European_Languages.jpg




Possibly not all Italic tribes arrived in Italy at once, but in several waves.

Exactly.


Italic must have arived in Italy before the Etruscans.

All what we know is that the proto-Villanovan culture (1100-900 BC) in the Etruscan area (central-southern Tuscany, northern Latium, western Umbria) is older than the rise of Etruscan civilization (800-700 BC). The proto-Villanovan culture is part of the expansion of proto-Italics in the Italian peninsula, even if IE were already arrived in Italy, at least since the Copper Age or early Bronze age.

On the other hand, "Etruscan" is an exonym, Etruscans called themselves "Rasenna" (*ras, -enna is a very old suffix still present in many northern and central Italian toponyms and idronyms, Brenna, Chiavenna o Clavenna, Crevenna, Ravenna, Scovenna, Sesenna, Varenna... also in the Reatic areas).

This is something that Sile doesn't like, but according to a recent text analysis and comprehension of the Demlfeld plate found in Austria, Etruscan and Reatic descend from a very old Tyrsenian language, called Common Tyrrhenic. The Raetic was the first to separate itself from this common linguistic ancestor, later the Etruscan. While the Lemnian derived entirely from the Etruscan, and not vice versa (Lemnian in the figure below is called Tyrrhenian). If this is correct, the presence of these non-IE languages ​​in Europe is much older than we usually believe as we can't rule out the coexistence in the same areas, at least for a certain period, of both Indo-European and non-Indo-European languages.

OC2JO7W.png


An epigraphic (Marchesini, chapter 6) and linguistic analysis (de Simone, chapter 7) are given to the technical description of form and content of the inscription. Moreover a conclusive, historical-linguistic chapter (Marchesini, chapter 8) complete the book, presenting an overview on the research of the Etruscan-Raetic-Tyrrenic connections. The text analysis and comprehension of the Demlfeld plate has lead us to this subject, i.e. the relationships between these three peoples (Etruscan-Raetic-Tyrrenic), since its close linguistic affinity not only with the Etruscan language, but also to the language of the Lemnian inscriptions, is evident. The recently published epigraphic text from Lemnos, namely the inscribed support of an anathema from Ephestia also confirms, in its text patterns, the deep relationship between Tyrrhenic and Etruscan. The linguistic evidence of genealogical affinity among the three languages offers a new, assured argument to support the difficult reconstruction of the pre- and proto-historical European world.


Together with Etruscan and the language of the Island of Lemnos (in Northern Aegaeis, “Tyrsenic”), the Rhaetic language belongs to a non Indo-European language family called Common Tyrrhenic, identified in 1998 by H. Rix, confirmed in 1999 by S. Schumacher and recently outlined by de Simone 2009, de Simone, Marchesini 2013 and Marchesini 2014. Common features of the three languages have been observed in phonology, morphology and syntax. Lexical correspondences are rarely attested, due not only to the limited number of well-conserved Rhaetic and Tyrsenic texts, but also to the very early date at which the languages split. According to archaeological and linguistic data, the split must have taken place prehistorically, certainly before the Bronze Age.

The genetic relationship between Etruscan and Reatic language is older than the relationship between Etruscan and Lemnian.

Sources:

La lamina di Demlfeld, Considerazioni storico linguistiche

https://www.academia.edu/5066954/La_lamina_di_Demlfeld_Considerazioni_storico_linguistiche

https://www.academia.edu/7606972/Nuove_iscrizioni_retiche_da_Cles_e_Sanzeno_Trento_

https://www.academia.edu/6857405/I_...ati_linguistici_il_caso_della_mozione_etrusca

http://lila.sns.it/mnamon/index.php?page=Lingua&id=41&lang=en


On the same wavelength, few years earlier the Dutch scholar Luuk De Ligt stated that Lemnian language could have arrived in the Aegean Sea during the Late Bronze Age, when Mycenaean rulers recruited groups of mercenaries from the Italian peninsula, Sicily and Sardinia.

http://www.talanta.nl/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/TAL-40-412008-2009-pag-151-172-DeLigt.pdf

More recently Bouke van der Meer reiterated this concept. (L. Bouke van der Meer, Leiden University, 2013).

As for Etruscan immigration(s) into Italy based on Herodotus and the non-Greek, Etruscoid Lemnian inscriptions, there is now evidence to the contrary: Etruscan pirates from Southern Etruria may have settled on Lemnos, around 700 BC or earlier and had been responsible for the inscriptions. Moreover, Carlo de Simone has definitely shown that Etruscan is not an Anatolian language.3 The Etruscan numerals, very characteristic elements of any language, do not have any parallels in Anatolian or other languages. In addition, there are no lexical comparanda in Caucasian languages.
 
Interesting, but there were several and different waves of IE migrations to Italy. The Italics are just a part of that. In your opinion, to which specific Italic tribe does J2a1 belong?





Spread_of_the_Indo_European_Languages.jpg






Exactly.




All what we know is that the proto-Villanovan culture (1100-900 BC) in the Etruscan area (central-southern Tuscany, northern Latium, western Umbria) is older than the rise of Etruscan civilization (800-700 BC). The proto-Villanovan culture is part of the expansion of proto-Italics in the Italian peninsula, even if IE were already arrived in Italy, at least since the Copper Age or early Bronze age.

On the other hand, "Etruscan" is an exonym, Etruscans called themselves "Rasenna" (*ras, -enna is a very old suffix still present in many northern and central Italian toponyms and idronyms, Brenna, Chiavenna o Clavenna, Crevenna, Ravenna, Scovenna, Sesenna, Varenna... also in the Reatic areas).

This is something that Sile doesn't like, but according to a recent text analysis and comprehension of the Demlfeld plate found in Austria, Etruscan and Reatic descend from a very old Tyrsenian language, called Common Tyrrhenic. The Raetic was the first to separate itself from this common linguistic ancestor, later the Etruscan. While the Lemnian derived entirely from the Etruscan, and not vice versa (Lemnian in the figure below is called Tyrrhenian). If this is correct, the presence of these non-IE languages ​​in Europe is much older than we usually believe as we can't rule out the coexistence in the same areas, at least for a certain period, of both Indo-European and non-Indo-European languages.

OC2JO7W.png









Sources:

La lamina di Demlfeld, Considerazioni storico linguistiche

https://www.academia.edu/5066954/La_lamina_di_Demlfeld_Considerazioni_storico_linguistiche

https://www.academia.edu/7606972/Nuove_iscrizioni_retiche_da_Cles_e_Sanzeno_Trento_

https://www.academia.edu/6857405/I_...ati_linguistici_il_caso_della_mozione_etrusca

http://lila.sns.it/mnamon/index.php?page=Lingua&id=41&lang=en


On the same wavelength, few years earlier the Dutch scholar Luuk De Ligt stated that Lemnian language could have arrived in the Aegean Sea during the Late Bronze Age, when Mycenaean rulers recruited groups of mercenaries from the Italian peninsula, Sicily and Sardinia.

http://www.talanta.nl/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/TAL-40-412008-2009-pag-151-172-DeLigt.pdf

More recently Bouke van der Meer reiterated this concept. (L. Bouke van der Meer, Leiden University, 2013).

It's about time that you agreed with me:
What I do not like is that the etruscans have been in Italy since ~900BC and the Lemian stele is only from 600BC ..................so where is it that etruscan is from Lemnian..........logic states, lemnian is from etruscan, most likely etruscan traders placed it in Lemnos

The Lemnian language is the language of a 6th century BC inscription found on a funerary stela on the island of Lemnos (termed the Lemnos stele, discovered in 1885 near Kaminia).


Raetic -Etruscan ?
The Raeti (find places in green on the map) appear to have learned the art of writing from the Veneti rather than the Etruscans (Schumacher 2004: 312–316). While Raetic inscriptions are only known from the 5th century onward, at a time when Etruscan inscriptions have appeared in the very North (see above), some features of the Raetic script strongly suggest a Venetic source.
 
@ Angela

I found this on facebook, to be compared with the Bell Beaker distribution, but I think it is pure coincidence

15781422_10211178832816756_3441939741812835236_n.jpg
 
Interesting, but there were several and different waves of IE migrations to Italy. The Italics are just a part of that. In your opinion, to which specific Italic tribe does J2a1 belong?

The vast majority of J2a1 is not IE or Italic. Only some very deep subclades of J2-Z435, a tiny wig in the huge J2 tree. Considering the age of Z435 and its presence in central and eastern Europe too, its assimilation to R1b tribes would have happened in the Carpathians or somewhere along the Danube before the Italic tribes moved to Italy. Consequently, all Italic tribes should have carried it.
 
A friend of mine belongs to this Subclade L70 (L398 on Geno)>>>Z435
 
It's about time that you agreed with me:
What I do not like is that the etruscans have been in Italy since ~900BC and the Lemian stele is only from 600BC ..................so where is it that etruscan is from Lemnian..........logic states, lemnian is from etruscan, most likely etruscan traders placed it in Lemnos

It's not correct to say that Etruscans have been in Italy since ~900BC, it's more correct to say that Etruscan inscriptions are attested in Italy since 800/700 BC. Mine could seem a moot point, but there is a huge difference.

Of course I do agree with you on this, "Lemnian is from Etruscan, most likely Etruscan traders placed it in Lemnos". It's exactly what De Simone and other scholars claim.

This is the key point, on which you should pay more attention.

De Simone/Marchesini "According to archaeological and linguistic data, the split (between Reatic and Etruscan [ed.]) must have taken place prehistorically, certainly before the Bronze Age. "


Raetic -Etruscan ?
The Raeti (find places in green on the map) appear to have learned the art of writing from the Veneti rather than the Etruscans (Schumacher 2004: 312–316). While Raetic inscriptions are only known from the 5th century onward, at a time when Etruscan inscriptions have appeared in the very North (see above), some features of the Raetic script strongly suggest a Venetic source

Sile, you do confuse as usual the script with the language. According to what you've posted some features of the Raetic script strongly suggest a Venetic source (a Venetic source for the script not for the language). The Venetic script is thought to be an adaptation of an Etruscan script. Anyway, all these scripts - Raetic, Venetic, Etruscan, Old-Italic... (Etruscan and Old-Italic are basically the same) have the same origin, the Euboean Greek alphabet in turn of an adaptation of a Phoenician alphabet. All these scripts were used by both IE and non-IE languages.



The vast majority of J2a1 is not IE or Italic. Only some very deep subclades of J2-Z435, a tiny wig in the huge J2 tree. Considering the age of Z435 and its presence in central and eastern Europe too, its assimilation to R1b tribes would have happened in the Carpathians or somewhere along the Danube before the Italic tribes moved to Italy. Consequently, all Italic tribes should have carried it.

Got it. In your opinion was this very deep subclades of J2-Z435 assimilated to a proto-Italic culture or to a proto-Italo-Celtic culture?
 
Got it. In your opinion was this very deep subclades of J2-Z435 assimilated to a proto-Italic culture or to a proto-Italo-Celtic culture?

Difficult to say for Z435. But PF5456 is only 2500 years old according to Yfull.com. If that estimate is approximately correct, then it would be exclusively Italic, and even Roman.
 
Difficult to say for Z435. But PF5456 is only 2500 years old according to Yfull.com. If that estimate is approximately correct, then it would be exclusively Italic, and even Roman.

I'm a little bit skeptical of PF5456. 2500 years old unlikely is an Italic subclade, it's even younger than the founding of Rome.
 

This thread has been viewed 41932 times.

Back
Top