R1b-U152/S28 : more Gaulish or Roman ?

Who spead R-U152 ?

  • The (Proto-)Italo-Celts

    Votes: 34 28.6%
  • The Hallstatt/La Tène Celts

    Votes: 31 26.1%
  • Italic people, including the Romans

    Votes: 15 12.6%
  • Hallstatt/La Tène Celts AND Italic people

    Votes: 26 21.8%
  • Earlier Neolithic or Mesolithic people

    Votes: 4 3.4%
  • Other (please specify)

    Votes: 9 7.6%

  • Total voters
    119
Celts and proto-italics had high steppe and low whg?

Not sure on that but looks like Bell Beakers had about 10% WHG, maybe some had a bit more some a bit less depending on who they encountered and mixed with
 

Attachments

  • nihms801601f7 (1).jpg
    nihms801601f7 (1).jpg
    102.5 KB · Views: 54
No. Celts and Proto-Italics (Do we have any samples of Proto-Italics ?) had significant double-digit amounts of WHG.
I'm curious to know what the phenotype of these proto-Celts and proto-Italics was like, would be similar to the people of southern Germany or some other place??
 
I'm curious to know what the phenotype of these proto-Celts and proto-Italics was like, would be similar to the people of southern Germany or some other place??
Years ago Maciamo on this website compared a certain "ancient Roman" look to modern South Germans and French..brown not black hair, a face broader at the forehead and narrower at the chin and moderate nose length.
 
How was probably phenotype of these proto-celts and proto-italics?

I'm not sure, they formed later than bell beakers. Here is a study on a bell beaker - http://journals.socantscot.org/index.php/psas/article/view/10106/10071

I think ultimately in Europe there must have been some periods (quite recent) where a natural selection/preference for light eyes, hair etc shifted the common appearance in some regions where light eyes and hair were previously more rare
 
Last edited:
Years ago Maciamo on this website compared a certain "ancient Roman" look to modern South Germans and French..brown not black hair, a face broader at the forehead and narrower at the chin and moderate nose length.
too later i think
 
too later i think
Well, we have no "Proto-Italic" genetic samples.

Some Italian linguistic scholars such as Giacomo Devoto do not believe in a unified Italic language family related to Celtic.. In central and southern Italy you had the Latin-Faliscan Branch (possibly with Sicel/Siculan) and an Osco-Umbrian branch.

The Z56 subclade common in central and to a lesser extent southern Italy hardly features in France today nor does Z36 frequently seen in northern Italy.
 
The Z56 subclade common in central and to a lesser extent southern Italy hardly features in France today nor does Z36 frequently seen in northern Italy.
Z56 has gained more testers in North Italy, especially in the Northwest since the days of Maciamo's maps/trees, mostly in Liguria, Piedmont, and Western Lombardia. Doesn't seem altogether absent from parts of France either, but when it got there (or in Italy, for that matter) is another matter.
 
Proto Italics and Proto Celts are two entirely different conversations. I will comment on the protoitalics since I am much more well read on this topic. Proto Italics are commonly attributed to the Terramare culture due to both the large demographic size of its colonization of Po Valley and the significant cultural homogenizing affect the later protovillanovans had on the whole of Italy. The protovillanovan culture in turn is a continuation of Terramare.

The Terramare people show extensive close contacts with the Carpathian basin and the northern adriatic - particularly with the Vatya and Nagyrev cultures which were highly militarized and rich in copper and tin. The Terramare entrance into northern Italy reflected this and mimicked the mass production of arms technology and improvements in sword making mirrored innovations that which emerged out of Hungary. Their funerary rites were also closely linked as well which was contrasted with notable changes from the preceding and demographically smaller Polada culture. We have bronze age samples from this region (the carpathian basin) and we also have genetic samples from specifically the proto Nagyrev and later MBA Vatya cultures whose material cultures tie closest to that of the Terramare. Their profiles are very modern like for northern Italy and for that reason it would personally be very surprising to me if the Terramare lacked a northern Italian like genome.

At some point I may make a larger post on this as I'm compiling a lot of archaeological research on the topic.

Vatya+Protonagyrev.png
 
Last edited:
Proto Italics and Proto Celts are two entirely different conversations. I will comment on the protoitalics since I am much more well read on this topic. Proto Italics are commonly attributed to the Terramare culture due to both the large demographic size of its colonization of Po Valley and the significant cultural homogenizing affect the later protovillanovans on the whole of Italy. The protovillanovan culture in turn is a continuation of Terramare.

The Terramare people show extensive close contacts with the Carpathian basin and the northern adriatic - particularly with the Vatya and Nagyrev cultures which were highly militarized and rich in copper and tin. The Terramare entrance into northern Italy reflected this and mimicked the mass production of arms technology and improvements in sword making mirrored innovations that emerged out of Hungary. Their funerary rites were also closely linked as well which was contrasted with notable changes from the preceeding and demographically smaller Polada culture. We have bronze age samples from this region (the carpathian basin) and we also have genetic samples from specifically the proto Nagyrev and later MBA Vatya cultures whose material cultures tie closest to that of the Terramare. Their profiles are very modern like for northern Italy and for that reason it would personally be very surprising to me if the Terramare lacked a northern Italian like genome.

At some point I may make a larger post on this as I'm compiling a lot of archaeological research on the topic.

View attachment 15295
Is obvious proto italic is different from celtic , when proto italic people splited from celtic their genetic , culture , language began to change but before that happen both shared a lot of things in common , celtic , italic is just a culture , language and that have nothing to do with genetics, both came from same father but in some moment life lead them to different paths , and these samples is already mixed
 
Is obvious proto italic is different from celtic , when proto italic people splited from celtic their genetic , culture , language began to change but before that happen both shared a lot of things in common , celtic , italic is just a culture , language and that have nothing to do with genetics, both came from same father but in some moment life lead them to different paths , and these samples is already mixed
I wouldn't be so quick to discount genetic differences between the two, personally. I do not think they were ever both at any point some type of homogeneous group that later split, but I will give you that from I've read it does seem that northern Italy and germany/austria were both culturally downstream from material innovations that were taking place in Hungary. They would've been aware of each other, facilitated trade and exchanged some vocabulary from this aspect, but the whole "one father two sons" narrative does not strike me as convincing. I see the emergence of proto-italic as a colonization event from a Carpathian population which was not particularly similar to the proto-celts. Whatever split would've differentiated the proto-italics and proto-celts predates the entrance of the Terramare phenomenon into Italy and seems to be found as early as the EBA.
 
I wouldn't be so quick to discount genetic differences between the two, personally. I do not think they were ever both at any point some type of homogeneous group that later split, but I will give you that from I've read it does seem that northern Italy and germany/austria were both culturally downstream from material innovations that were taking place in Hungary. They would've been aware of each other, facilitated trade and exchanged some vocabulary from this aspect, but the whole "one father two sons" narrative does not strike me as convincing. I see the emergence of proto-italic as a colonization event from a Carpathian population which was not particularly similar to the proto-celts. Whatever split would've differentiated the proto-italics and proto-celts predates the entrance of the Terramare phenomenon into Italy and seems to be found as early as the EBA.
What you typed doesn't make any logical sense, they both came from the same father, so it's obvious that the lineage that gave rise to the Celts and the other lineage that gave rise to the Proto-Italic at some point in history shared many things in common, both came from the same father but at some point the lineage of the Proto-Italics went on a different path and came into contact with different cultures, in this way these Proto-Italic tribes distanced themselves from the Proto-Celts, this is a question of logic, I don't said that the Proto-Italics were from the same tribe from the Proto Celts but because they both came from the same father in a certain period they were genetically similar, which then with the subsequent events that led to the split of these people both became genetically different, I I'm talking about genetics and it's literally impossible for this didnt happen
 
I wouldn't be so quick to discount genetic differences between the two, personally. I do not think they were ever both at any point some type of homogeneous group that later split, but I will give you that from I've read it does seem that northern Italy and germany/austria were both culturally downstream from material innovations that were taking place in Hungary. They would've been aware of each other, facilitated trade and exchanged some vocabulary from this aspect, but the whole "one father two sons" narrative does not strike me as convincing. I see the emergence of proto-italic as a colonization event from a Carpathian population which was not particularly similar to the proto-celts. Whatever split would've differentiated the proto-italics and proto-celts predates the entrance of the Terramare phenomenon into Italy and seems to be found as early as the EBA.
How difficult is it for you to understand something so simple, I'm not talking about culture or language here, I'm just talking about genetics, so it's literally impossible for these people at some point in history not to have shared anything genetically, this is already a problem of logic
 
What you typed doesn't make any logical sense, they both came from the same father, so it's obvious that the lineage that gave rise to the Celts and the other lineage that gave rise to the Proto-Italic at some point in history shared many things in common, both came from the same father but at some point the lineage of the Proto-Italics went on a different path and came into contact with different cultures, in this way these Proto-Italic tribes distanced themselves from the Proto-Celts, this is a question of logic, I don't said that the Proto-Italics were from the same tribe from the Proto Celts but because they both came from the same father in a certain period they were genetically similar, which then with the subsequent events that led to the split of these people both became genetically different, I I'm talking about genetics and it's literally impossible for this didnt happen
If you honestly think all proto-italics and proto-celts shared a single father at any point I don't really think there's much further to discuss. The formation of these groups, including both their similarities and differences was likely extremely nuanced and complex. I would think this is pretty obvious to most, but if you want to believe in some sort of mythological parent that gave birth to two massive european ethnic groups then I guess you're free to do as you please.
 
Well, we have no "Proto-Italic" genetic samples.

Some Italian linguistic scholars such as Giacomo Devoto do not believe in a unified Italic language family related to Celtic.. In central and southern Italy you had the Latin-Faliscan Branch (possibly with Sicel/Siculan) and an Osco-Umbrian branch.

The Z56 subclade common in central and to a lesser extent southern Italy hardly features in France today nor does Z36 frequently seen in northern Italy.
I do not recall in my studies ever linking Latin-Faliscan to the Umbrian branch............................

Latin-Failiscan is made up of only Latin and Venetic with some Rhaetic, Magre and Cumunic.

Umbrian has Sabine, Volsci, Sabellic, Samnite, Lucani and many others

Liguri and Etruscan are on their own sepearatly

Sicel is another separate group
 
I do not recall in my studies ever linking Latin-Faliscan to the Umbrian branch............................

Latin-Failiscan is made up of only Latin and Venetic with some Rhaetic, Magre and Cumunic.

Umbrian has Sabine, Volsci, Sabellic, Samnite, Lucani and many others

Liguri and Etruscan are on their own sepearatly

Sicel is another separate group
I don't link them but some scholars do link them because they see only one ITALIC language family.
 
If you honestly think all proto-italics and proto-celts shared a single father at any point I don't really think there's much further to discuss. The formation of these groups, including both their similarities and differences was likely extremely nuanced and complex. I would think this is pretty obvious to most, but if you want to believe in some sort of mythological parent that gave birth to two massive european ethnic groupsis then I guess you're free to do as you please.
Honestly i give up , i am just talking about R-U152 , R-L2 , both have celtic clades and proto-italic clades that means some moment they shared same ancient ancestors , i didnt say they was from same tribe but how they came from same father these two different lineages shared something in some moment , is a matter of logic but ok i give up
 
Honestly i give up , i am just talking about R-U152 , R-L2 , both have celtic clades and proto-italic clades that means some moment they shared same ancient ancestors , i didnt say they was from same tribe but how they came from same father these two different lineages shared something in some moment , is a matter of logic but ok i give up
You forget that in modern Italy Z56 is more common than L2.
 

This thread has been viewed 382758 times.

Back
Top