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
Well i can tell you that the map you posted isn't in any way useful to the discussion.

Correct,
This isnt even a Biasutti map, there are few maps on the i-net that claim to be Biasutti or Livi but are not;

this is from Dr. R. Livi -

Dr. R. Livi - Antropometria Militare / 299,000 recruits all regions
4562291520_678f532076_z.jpg


everyone is capable in calculating the %s; But this is strictly Anthropological;
 
Correct,

Given the high G2a in Southern Italy also the high E-V13 one might well conclude a substantial Neolithic pressence that was absorbed by the Indo-European Italics [Bruttii and Samnites];




The fact that regions like Calabria still have 15.5% U-152 -Bruttii and
Molise
8% with the Abruzzo region 13% -Samnites -of course also a lot were killed in the 3 wars

is a significant remnant of the Indo-European Italics [Umbrian/Ambronen];
And this is just exclusively U-152;

Given what was before [G2a] and what all came contemporary from the East Mediterranean with Pelasgians and Greeks, i would have expected much lower;

in total S Italy = 8.6% U-152 and 16.2 G2a and 10.6% E-V13 and 17.1% J2 -Boattini et al 2013

all in all paints a very accurate picture;

It only suggests that R1b-U152 was never common in these areas.
 
Evidence? A good book about Italian History.

All jokes aside, next days I will try to find a more convincing evidences. Anyway, I think it's hard to think that a genetics photography of a modern country like Italy with a very complex history may actually reflect the perfect distribution of ancient peoples lived 3000 years before.

Well it hasn't stopped you speculating on insufficient grounds.

I think I know more about Italian history than you so quit the snide remarks.
 
Ich can say you why in corsica and sardinia were so much R1b-U152. Because when corsica would a part of france, many french people come to corsica.

The demography of the native-corsican is very bad, so the genes of the french (with most R1b-U152) are dominant of corsica. Its fact.
A friend of my parents is a real corsican (with french ancestors) and his wife a austrian. So many corsican with french ancestors, live on corsica.
The statistics about the haplogroup distribution are from the new-time.
So do you understand what i want so say?

How exact it is on sardinia, i dont know. But i think we must include modern migrations, because all the haplogroup statistics, dont exclude this migrations f.e. since the 18. century.

Not so true. It's very easy to distinguish a true Corsican from one of French origin. All the true Corsicans have Italian surnames, in particular Tuscan and Ligurian surnames. True Corsicans are mixed only in more recent times with the French people.

I think that it's completely normal that in Corsica is found R1b-U152, Corsica has an history closely linked to Tuscany and Liguria until 1700. And as we know today, the higher percentage of R1b-U152 is between Southern Liguria and Northern Tuscany.
 
It only suggests that R1b-U152 was never common in these areas.

Yes,

But who told you the Samnites or Bruttii massacred or disposed the Neolithic populations?

They settled amongst them, look up Ver Sacrum thats how the Indo-European Umbrian [Sabellic] stock expanded in the south - not full scale migrations;

So the results (post #79) are as expected, and clearly indicate the Indo-European Italics;

Homer recorded in the times of the Odyssey that Cimmerians [Umbrians] were dwelling in caves (roaming bands) in Southern Italy; so the Umbrians (Cimmerians of Homer) did not settle much in the South at least till the times of the Odyssey;

Not sure who told you otherwise;
 
Well it hasn't stopped you speculating on insufficient grounds.

I think I know more about Italian history than you so quit the snide remarks.

You need to show me some real evidences to demonstrate that You know Italian history better than me.
 
Correct,
This isnt even a Biasutti map, there are few maps on the i-net that claim to be Biasutti or Livi but are not;

this is from Dr. R. Livi -

Dr. R. Livi - Antropometria Militare / 299,000 recruits all regions
4562291520_678f532076_z.jpg


everyone is capable in calculating the %s; But this is strictly Anthropological;
Actually i wasn't doubting the map more than the fact about a presumed correlation between R1b-U152 and Blondism.
 
Correct,

Given the high G2a in Southern Italy also the high E-V13 one might well conclude a substantial Neolithic pressence that was absorbed by the Indo-European Italics [Bruttii and Samnites];


The fact that regions like Calabria still have 15.5% U-152 -Bruttii and
Molise
8% with the Abruzzo region 13% -Samnites -of course also a lot were killed in the 3 wars

is a significant remnant of the Indo-European Italics [Umbrian/Ambronen];
And this is just exclusively U-152;

Given what was before [G2a] and what all came contemporary from the East Mediterranean with Pelasgians and Greeks, i would have expected much lower;

in total S Italy = 8.6% U-152 and 16.2 G2a and 10.6% E-V13 and 17.1% J2 -Boattini et al 2013

all in all paints a very accurate picture;

Again, I completely agree with You.

We must consider the U-152 found in South Italy as as a remnant of something that was more widespread in the past. I think this is the right interpretation.

As We know, Samnites and Romans never had good relations. The Samnite Wars were a bloodbath for the Samnites.
 
Again, I completely agree with You.

We must consider the U-152 found in South Italy as as a remnant of something that was more widespread in the past. I think this is the right interpretation.

As We know, Samnites and Romans never had good relations. The Samnite Wars were a bloodbath for the Samnites.

The facts only show that R1b-U152 were NEVER common in these areas.

Why would R1b disappear to a greater extent than local J or G?

Your scholarship is weak even here.
 
Actually i wasn't doubting the map more than the fact about a presumed correlation between R1b-U152 and Blondism.

yes, both is correct - thats why i wrote strictly Anthropological
 
Correct,
This isnt even a Biasutti map, there are few maps on the i-net that claim to be Biasutti or Livi but are not;

this is from Dr. R. Livi -

Dr. R. Livi - Antropometria Militare / 299,000 recruits all regions
4562291520_678f532076_z.jpg


everyone is capable in calculating the %s; But this is strictly Anthropological;

Biasutti text refers to the Livi studies. And so I guess that the map should have been elaborate on the Livi studies.

From Treccani Enciclopedia:

Inviato in Africa orientale nel 1887-88 con il corpo di spedizione italiano, fu in seguito richiamato a Roma presso l'Ispettorato della sanità militare, incaricato dal ministero della Guerra della sistemazione ed elaborazione dei dati di una grande indagine antropometrica avviata sui militari di leva delle classi 1859-63.

It's definitely Anthropometry and certainly not genetics. I posted because we'ere talking about the Benevento area, a southern area that shows a peek of blondism on the South. That could be due to medieval migrations, that may well be.
 
The facts only show that R1b-U152 were NEVER common in these areas.

Why would R1b disappear to a greater extent than local J or G?

Your scholarship is weak even here.

its def. more common in S Italy than any other region of S Europe;
Now take a wild guess why thats the case;

Or dont you believe in the existence of the historical Samnites - Bruttii - Lucani,
 
The facts only show that R1b-U152 were NEVER common in these areas.

Why would R1b disappear to a greater extent than local J or G?

Your scholarship is weak even here.

My scholarship? I pretend not to have read.

I dont' have much time to play with You.
 
its def. more common in S Italy than any other region of S Europe;
Now take a wild guess why thats the case;

Or dont you believe in the existence of the historical Samnites - Bruttii - Lucani,

They existed...doesn't prove they were predominantly R1b-U152.

If this haplogroup is present in southern Italy and Sicily it may be due to the settlement of "Lombards", ie North Italians, often actually Ligurian or Piedmontese, during the Middle Ages. They must have brought some U152.

So-called Gallo-Italian dialects still survive in pockets of Basilicata, Calabria and Sicily.
 
existence of the historical Samnites - Bruttii - Lucani,

As recorded on the Fasti Triumphales Romans defeated Samnites at least 30 times between 343 BC and 272 BC. Bruttii and Lucani at least 7 times, between 282 BC and 272 BC. You may very well think that they were decimated by the Romans.
 
Statistics of people killed or enslaved in Roman times were a matter of rhetoric not precise calculation.

These tribes existed...fact.

Their predominant R1b-U152 affiliation is mere speculation.

How convenient for your argument...the Romans killed most of them..this explains low U152 in Southern Italy.
LOL
 
They existed...doesn't prove they were predominantly R1b-U152.

If this haplogroup is present in southern Italy and Sicily it may be due to the settlement of "Lombards", ie North Italians, often actually Ligurian or Piedmontese, during the Middle Ages. They must have brought some U152.

So-called Gallo-Italian dialects still survive in pockets of Basilicata, Calabria and Sicily.

There are no Gallo-Italics dialects communities in Calabria. In Calabria there is only an Occitan language village, Guardia Piemontese (In the past there were many more Occitan language villages in Calabria, but They were decimated by the Catholic Church because these villages were Protestant).
 

This thread has been viewed 386164 times.

Back
Top