R1b-U152 L2*

Where did R1b-U152 L2* in the Balkans originate from?


  • Total voters
    51
My YDNA is R1b-L2-Z150-FGC5007 from Afghanistan. I'm a Hazara
 
I'm Indian but my Paternal ancestors came from Turkey, and I'm R-U152>R-L2>R-L20
 
Are only L2 and its subclades being considered signs of "Roman" presence because that's the majority of U-152 that appears outside of Italy?

However, if all of U-152 was present in Italy by the time that Rome was consolidating its power, i.e. was present by the Copper-Bronze Age, then wouldn't all of its subclades have left traces in the Empire? And wouldn't the subclades strongest in the center, like Z36 and Z56, have been part of the mix among the men who served as Roman Legionnaires in the earliest conquests?

L2 is actually higher as a percentage of the total as one goes north. So, once troops were raised in Gallia Cisalpina, it would definitely appear among them and there might be traces in the places where they served.

Someone who is tracing his own particular U-152 lineage might want to see which particular legions were stationed in his ancestral area, and then check to see where the legions were originally formed, as that might give some clues?

FWIW, I think this is a good analysis of U-152 in Italy.
http://r1b.org/?page_id=242

Off topic here, but I also think that other y lineages would have left some trace. Most of the Italian peninsula was "Roman" pretty early on.
Dorian , i am R-Z49 , R-S8183 , R-S8172 final clade that means my ancient ancestors is only proto-italic or a mix between celts and italics?
 
Last edited:
It looks proto Celtic, it wasn't part of the Urnfield elite/proto -

Urnfield formed in central Europe around Hungary from the Vatya culture, your line was already in western Europe by this time but was possibly affected/assimilated by Urnfielders expanding west. Here is an example of a post Urnfield line -
R-Z49 is too strong northeast italy but some subclades from R-S8183 do not look like italic , but veneto has a strong conection with R-Z49 , R-S8183 father R-S8172 , but a lot people from north germany and scandinavia test positive to R-Y4353 father from R-S8172
 
R-Z49 is too strong northeast italy but some subclades from R-S8183 do not look like italic , but veneto has a strong conection with R-Z49 , R-S8183 father R-S8172 , but a lot people from north germany and scandinavia test positive to R-Y4353 father from R-S8172

Initially ancestral lines would have spread with Bell Beaker, some lines would have expanded with the Tumulus culture in the bronze age - https://www.persee.fr/doc/mom_2259-4884_2012_act_58_1_3467
 
Last edited:
Initially ancestral lines would have spread with Bell Beaker, some lines would have expanded with the Tumulus culture in the bronze age - https://www.persee.fr/doc/mom_2259-4884_2012_act_58_1_3467
Thanks for the answers, one doubt I have, how did the split of the proto Celtics and proto Italics from alps before 1800 bce occur, they were basically the same people? because i know both have same father R-U152 , R-L2 what differentiate them is just language and culture? phenotype probably should be the same but later proto italic changed because contact with ancient tribes with high farmer i supposed, i dont know much about proto celts and proto italics is strange they came from same father
 
Thanks for the answers, one doubt I have, how did the split of the proto Celtics and proto Italics from alps before 1800 bce occur, they were basically the same people? because i know both have same father R-U152 , R-L2 what differentiate them is just language and culture? phenotype probably should be the same but later proto italic changed because contact with ancient tribes with high farmer i supposed, i dont know much about proto celts and proto italics is strange they came from same father

I haven't read too much about Italo Celtic, it seems that professional historians haven't been able to agree on an exact origin. Some say proto Celtic formed in bronze age (Tumulus), some say they formed later in iron age (Hallstatt) and La Tene would have been proper Celtic
 
Halstatt is late bronze-age period ( near East-Austria).............it is the same time as the celtic capital of Glauberg ( near Frankfurt Germany ).............so most like central and southern Germany where celtic in the late bronze-age.

La Tene is not before 450BC and is only iron-age

puzzles me why people have this affinity that La Tene means something more than it is
 
The examined individuals of the Hallstatt culture and La Tène culture displayed genetic continuity with the earlier Bell Beaker culture, and carried about 50% steppe-related ancestry.

Note that this is very different to what was found from the Urnfield related Tollense battle warriors who had 30% Steppe and 30-40% WHG -

This is why I suggest that proto Urnfield was not Celtic, Urnfield formed further east than the Celts but they did expand westward and made contact with proto Celts.
 
Last edited:
I haven't read too much about Italo Celtic, it seems that professional historians haven't been able to agree on an exact origin. Some say proto Celtic formed in bronze age (Tumulus), some say they formed later in iron age (Hallstatt) and La Tene would have been proper Celtic
Some experts see the Latin-Faliscan (possibly with Sicel/Siculan too) as a separate branch of I-E speech from Osco-Umbrian. The similarities between these 2 branches are due to contact within Italy itself.
 

This thread has been viewed 114800 times.

Back
Top