World Families Forums - Is U152 (S28) of Italic origin?

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
July 10, 2014, 02:43:13 PM
Home Help Search Login Register

+  World Families Forums
|-+  General Forums - Note: You must Be Logged In to post. Anyone can browse.
| |-+  R1b General (Moderator: rms2)
| | |-+  Is U152 (S28) of Italic origin?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Is U152 (S28) of Italic origin?  (Read 3893 times)
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« on: December 23, 2011, 04:59:33 PM »

This came came up on the English wipe-out thread but it could be an extensive topic so I'll restart it over here.
.. To some extent I'm coming around to Gioiello's way of thinking on U152, i.e., that it is a lot more Italic than we often consider.

I think this is possible, but I'm leaning towards U152 coming from the north side of the Alps or even northwest and then moving deeper into Cisalpine Gaul (N. Italy.) rather than the other way around.

My thinking is based mostly on getting higher U152 diversity in France than in Italy together with U152 being very scarce as you go south into the Italian Peninsula.

Here is what R. Rocca has to say over at U152.org. My opinion is he is objective and has looked at the data as much as anybody.
Quote from: RRocca
1. La Tène material is very rare in Corsica. Therefore, a La Tène source for Corsican U152 is very unlikely.

2. The high level in U152 in Lombardia, Corsica, Tuscany and Umbria seems to pre-date the arrival of the Etruscans in the IXc B.C.
U152_Frequency_9-28-2011_max_likelihood_small

3. The fact that U152 is twice as frequent in eastern France than in the southern Italian Peninsula rules out U152 as an exclusively Italic marker that was dispersed by the Romans. It is more likely that Gaulish tribes such as the Senones, Lingones, and Helvetii as well as Belgae tribes such as the Remi were more than likely heavily U152 and their numbers reduced as a part of Roman and later Germanic expansions.

4. U152 probably played a strong part in bringing the Indo-European languages into Italy, which could have happened any time between the Bell Beaker/Polada Culture and the Urnfield/early Hallstatt periods.

5. During the historical period, the best representation of U152 tribes were probably the Ligurians and Golaseccans, the former speaking a Celtic language with some links to Italic and the latter speaking Lepontic, an archaic P-Celtic language with close affinities to Gaulish. The Ligurians were seafarers which were known to have colonized Corsica and have also been linked to the Sicels of Sicily. As for the Lepontics, Caesar stated that they inhabited the Alps all the way up to the origin of the Rhine.

6. To further the Ligurian link, but not plotted on the map, Garfagnana which was the most heavily populated Ligurian area during the Roman period, had the highest amount of R1b (76.2%) in all of Italy as per Di Giacomo et al. (2003). For a variety of reasons, I have very little doubt that most of this R1b is U152.

7. Speculation is that by the time Rome started to make it's power grab, the Italics (Romans, Umbrians, Venetics, etc.) were already a heterogeneous people consisting of U152 and halpotypes belonging to earlier Neolithic people, Etruscans, Greeks, and Illyrians. Likely, the Gauls were a mix of L11 peoples, including U152, L21, Z196 and to a lesser extent U106 and also some Neolithic peoples.

It seems that out of all of the theories that have been brought up regarding U152, the distribution that most matches this U152 map is that of the Urnfield Culture.
« Last Edit: December 24, 2011, 11:35:56 AM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>L705.2
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #1 on: December 23, 2011, 05:38:42 PM »

I wouldnt think that Celtic and Italic were distinct from each other at the time U152 was settling its known areas of high prevalence.  I think the correlation between clades and dialects is very imperfect simply because the clade distribution came first and the development of dialect zones came a bit later. I think clade distribution is down to founder effects and geography while language groups are down to contact networks and geographical factors.  I think the partial correlation between languages and clades is because both were effected by the same geographical factors. 
Logged
Maliclavelli
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2146


« Reply #2 on: December 23, 2011, 05:47:35 PM »

I have written a lot about this here and on other forums. Nothing to say about Rich Rocca, whose paper about 1000 Genomes Project I did appreciate a lot, even though he has replied to me a little bit angrily on Dna-forums: there I am Claire, after that a French friend gave me his account (everybody knows that am I, and it seems it is right for everyone). I have posted some recent researches and next tests will say who is right and who is wrong.
I’ll reply to what Rocca says, because about the knowledge of Italy, of Glottology, of History etc. I presume not to be second to anybody.
« Last Edit: December 23, 2011, 05:53:19 PM by Maliclavelli » Logged

Maliclavelli


YDNA: R-S12460


MtDNA: K1a1b1e

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #3 on: December 23, 2011, 08:30:53 PM »

I wouldn't say U152 was "exclusively Italic", but I think it may be more Italic than many people think. If you hold Romans to account for at least some of it in Gaul and elsewhere, that reduces the percentage supplied by Gauls and Germans. That makes its frequency in France and Germany less obviously Celtic.

U152 is frequent in places in Italy where Celts never settled. It is also the R1b clade in Sardinia, which, as far as I know, was never settled by Celts.
Logged

Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #4 on: December 24, 2011, 11:57:31 AM »

I wouldn't say U152 was "exclusively Italic", but I think it may be more Italic than many people think. If you hold Romans to account for at least some of it in Gaul and elsewhere, that reduces the percentage supplied by Gauls and Germans. That makes its frequency in France and Germany less obviously Celtic.

U152 is frequent in places in Italy where Celts never settled. It is also the R1b clade in Sardinia, which, as far as I know, was never settled by Celts.
I think R Rocca's point is that U152 existed earlier than what we can pin to a language. I think both the Urnfield people and the Ligures hit those large islands in the Western Med.

Here are the variance numbers by country. This is why I think U152 moved into Italy from other places.

U152 France_________:  Var=1.21 [Linear 36]  (N=39)   
U152 France_________:  Var=1.23 [Mixed 49]  (N=39)

U152 Germany________:  Var=0.95 [Linear 36]  (N=62)   
U152 Germany________:  Var=1.04 [Mixed 49]  (N=62)

U152 Swiss & Austria:  Var=0.94 [Linear 36]  (N=28)   
U152 Swiss & Austria:  Var=0.98 [Mixed 49]  (N=28)   

U152 Italy__________:  Var=0.87 [Linear 36]  (N=33)
U152 Italy__________:  Var=0.96 [Mixed 49]  (N=33)


The U152 in France is about the most diverse of element of P312. It makes a decent justification to say P312 originated there. (EDIT: that's in our DNA projects. In studies they have come up with places like Turkey.)
« Last Edit: December 24, 2011, 01:31:18 PM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>L705.2
Maliclavelli
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2146


« Reply #5 on: December 24, 2011, 12:26:12 PM »

Of course all this is likable. When I found that Pommier, who asked me about his haplotype and it seemed to me a R-L23 of Armenian type, came out a R-U152, I said that France could get the most ancient haplotypes of this haplogroup. But…
You all continue to not take in consideration my principles:
1)   mutations around the modal
2)   convergence to the modal as time passes
3)   some mutations gone for the tangent.

Like the recent aDNA-s have demonstrated, the calculations done without taken in consideration these principles are underestimated for 2.5, then the age of a haplogroup should be multiplied for this, and we’d be in a completely different history.

The variance you have calculated and you continue to calculate is worth nothing. The places with the highest variance not only could be the places with the lowest one, but also the places with the overlapping of many migrations from the next places and the place with the lowest variance the place of origin.
I think that only the aDNA will respond definitely to our questions, but you know that my method is trying to supply to it: by the path of a haplogroup, and for this I continue to bet on Italy.
Logged

Maliclavelli


YDNA: R-S12460


MtDNA: K1a1b1e

Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #6 on: December 24, 2011, 04:32:57 PM »

... The variance you have calculated and you continue to calculate is worth nothing. The places with the highest variance not only could be the places with the lowest one, but also the places with the overlapping of many migrations from the next places and the place with the lowest variance the place of origin. I think that only the aDNA will respond definitely to our questions, but you know that my method is trying to supply to it: by the path of a haplogroup, and for this I continue to bet on Italy.
I don't think we can pinpoint U152's origin with high STR diversity as places of high diversity may be cross-roads rather than origins. However, diversity is useful for eliminating locations. A place of low diversity is neither a cross-roads or an origin.  This is the problem with Italy as far as U152 - low diversity. However L11 itself could possibly have originated in Italy, it's just that the L11* lineage that produced P312 and U152 seems to have left Italy.

I don't think aDNA will provide the answers any time soon. We'll need a broad, representative sampling of aDNA to tell much.  We hardly have a representative sampling with modern DNA!
« Last Edit: December 24, 2011, 04:35:19 PM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>L705.2
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #7 on: December 24, 2011, 05:36:27 PM »

Besides, it seems with aDNA we are lucky to get as far up the tree as R1b. I don't know of any aDNA findings that have gone beyond M269. Or have they even gone that far? Maybe they stop at M343?

Don't some of them just get a few STRs and then predict the y haplogroup?

It seems unlikely we'll get findings of haplogroups as far downstream as U152 anytime soon. Not that they didn't exist: the scientists aren't testing for them, or maybe they just can't squeeze that much info out of what little they have.

But I guess they got Ötzi's whole genome, so perhaps there is hope. Of course, he was a special case: nicely frozen.
Logged

Maliclavelli
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2146


« Reply #8 on: December 25, 2011, 02:26:14 AM »

However L11 itself could possibly have originated in Italy, it's just that the L11* lineage that produced P312 and U152 seems to have left Italy.
I thank you for having said this. I had arrived to R-L51 (and Argiedude contributed). From our data it didn't seem that Italy were rich of R-L11, only D'Ambrosia in the FTDNA data, and Busby and others demonstrated a huge presence of it more in the British Isles and Baltic Countries than in the Alps. But it was just my theory, that what we find now there came from the Italian Refugium. If this could be demonstrated, for me it would be enough.
« Last Edit: December 25, 2011, 02:28:19 AM by Maliclavelli » Logged

Maliclavelli


YDNA: R-S12460


MtDNA: K1a1b1e

Richard Rocca
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 523


« Reply #9 on: December 25, 2011, 12:59:05 PM »

A great topic and a good place for my first WorldFamilies post.

I agree that the importance of U152 in the Italic tribes is sometimes understated. I think it's because most folks on these forums are of British ancestry and therefore the Celtic angle gets more attention, and certainly a La Tene origin makes sense for these folks. Several downstream markers of L2 seem to support this (L20 and Z49), but we are a long way from confirming the link.

There is no doubt in my mind that the eastern Gaulish tribes (i.e. Helvetii, Boii, Lepontics) as well as the northern-Italic tribes (i.e. Umbri, Veneti) contained an important amount of U152. Umbria is in central Italy, however they were said to be in possession of lands up to the Po River at the time of the Etruscan conquest. Roman historians claimed that the Umbrians were descended from "ancient Gauls" and that the Veneti were indistinguishable from Gauls in every way except for their language. I think the cultural similarities the Romans observed between Gauls, Venetics, and Umbrians were a product of their shared ancestry many centuries earlier, perhaps during the Urnfield period but maybe even earlier.

The "in-between" U152 seem to be have been the Ligurians, with their Celto-Italic language. I think they best explain the high U152 frequency in Corsica as the Ligurians have an old presence there (see Menhirs) and were thought to have been excellent seafarers and were even known for their piracy.

As far as the Romans being the culprits for the spread U152, I just don't buy it for the following reasons:

1. People from all over the empire were dying to get into Rome, not to leave it.
2. The Romans founded as many cities in the eastern part of the empire than the west. That U152 colonists were selectively sent to the west doesn't make sense to me.
3. The Romans were probably a hybrid Y-DNA population at the time of their expansion (Latins/Etruscans/Neolithics/Greeks). I say this only because the drop in U152 is so drastic in southern Italy. The U152 frequency there is about what it is in places like East Germany, Belgium, and Southern England - not your typical "Italic" hotspots. For anyone who thinks that the first Italic tribes were identical to the historical Romans, I should point out that most of the oldest archaic Latin texts (i.e. Carmen Saliare) cannot be fully translated by modern Linguists.

As for variance, it has its negatives, but I think the arguments against it would apply for all areas. For example, Italy's strategic importance in the Mediterranean have made it a crossing ground for people for millenia. I would think that we would see a high U152 variance there, but we don't. Also, if STRs move up and down along a modal value, they would do so for Italians, French and Germans alike, unless of course you were born next to a nuclear power plant.

Merry Christmas / Buon Natale !
Logged

Paternal: R1b-U152+L2*
Maternal: H
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #10 on: December 26, 2011, 02:26:20 PM »

I think that is a pretty balanced assessment.

I do have one comment about the following:

Quote
2. The Romans founded as many cities in the eastern part of the empire than the west. That U152 colonists were selectively sent to the west doesn't make sense to me.

U152 colonists wouldn't have to be selectively sent to the west to appear in greater numbers there. Southeastern France is right next door to Italy; the rest of Gaul is easily reached from its southeastern part, etc.

Romans are known to have settled in Gaul in great numbers. Rome's eastern provinces were farther away and less attractive.
Logged

Maliclavelli
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2146


« Reply #11 on: December 26, 2011, 04:23:19 PM »

A few observations for now:
1)   I agree with Rocca that we shall be prudent. To collect the most data as possible, and certain, and only after to do some conclusions. Unfortunately I haven’t the power levers, and Rocca in some way has, being an administrator of some projects, even though his colleague doesn’t seem has profited of this situation. I understand that there are understandable reasons beyond the politics of these firms: religious or merely industrial, but we pursue the truth and only the truth. I haven’t been able to find the Italian K1a1b1a who would have helped me to solve the question of this haplogroup; the statement (important for me) that mt R0a was Palaeolithic European has been deleted and corrected (and web isn’t a printed book) etc.
2)   It would be useful for me to have a Tuscan project, like there is a Sicilian one. The history of Italy has always been very differentiated and to put the data in the same hotchpotch is a little bit useful to understand the genetics of our country and only who knows the vicissitudes of this history could say something careful. Can we  say that 1kGP (50 Tuscan Y-s taken by chance) may be the real image of the genetics on my region? In this forums I have analysed those data and also the overwhelming presence of hg. J (I tried to demonstrate that there is here all the path of this haplogroup, demonstrating, I think, a very ancient presence), but what to say about R upstream R-P312 not appeared? I have tested a few friends and relatives, by chance, of certain ancient Tuscan ancestry: 1 R-M269, 2 R-L23 (of course I don’t count my son) and an R (probably U152/DYS492=14). The few Tuscans tested by 23andme who are closely related to me are R-U152, G2a, and of course we cannot speculate about persons mixed without a specific test. I have the impression that my zone is rich of R and of the most ancient mt (R0a2, K1a1b1, H6a1, H*).
3)   If it is difficult to say something careful about our recent history, how can we say something about the Italics, the Celts, the Etruscans, etc.? I have the impression that Rocca does many  statements. We don’t know if Ligurians were Celts or Celticized. I think not. If we exam the name Polcevera from *Porcobera and Bormida from *IE ģhwormo-, we should say that they were an independent branch of IE. And we don’t know if Lepontians were Celts or Celticized. And we don’t know if Celts were born in Central Europe or came before from Italy. Anatole Klyosov says that we don’t know anything about Celts (at least about their language) before the half of the 1 millennium BC. And we don’t know if the interpretation of a scholar of the Stele of Novilara like the most ancient witness of Celt language is reliable or not.
4)   And please don’t say anymore that Etruscans came from Lemnos! It is probably true the other way around. I have destroyed (this is the right word) all the papers that tried to demonstrate that Etruscans get Middle Eastern mitochondrion, beginning from the paper of Brisighelli to the papers of Achilli. He found a few haplotypes which matched some Middle Eastern ones, but also those R0a I found by chance in my cousin’s husband (and in private persons I am following), and the last paper of Achilli (done for other reasons) has put the bases, found in Campania a R0b, for that R0a’b which strengthened my theory, but now, like I have said above, this important statement of 23andme and FTDNA has been corrected. It is always open the question of the Sea Peoples. Did they come all from the Balkans or the Aegean Sea or also from Italy? What about the SHRDN, the SHKLSH, the TWRSH? We’ll see how it will end the question of G-L497+, found in a Tuscan of the 1kGP and at Lemnos. Many are testing all the Turks as possible for L43 and L42.
5)   To link U152 to the Urnfield peoples…It seems to me that the distribution of this haplogroup to-day and its frequency doesn’t overlap them at all. If the frequency is that published by Rocca, it doesn’t correspond to anything known in historic times, and probably is due to a most ancient diffusion, and you know that I’d multiply your age for at least 2.5.
6)   A) Also the following statements of Rocca, those signed by numbers, are too general. Peoples came to Rome not from Rome? At the beginning Rome and Romans conquered and peopled the next places, first in Italy and after in all the Empire, and who are the descendants of the millions of slaves? Where are in Italy all their haplogroups? Remember how a few Iberians have given their Y to the most part of Latin Americans. B) “The Romans founded as many cities in the eastern part of the empire than the west”. A city founded isn’t a city peopled. The Eastern part of the Empire remained always more Greek than Latin, apart the Dacia, but who peopled it isn’t certain. Someone speaks of people from Italy and the Rhine Valley, difficult to say from where. Certainly Roman colonists peopled more, out of Italy, Provence and Spain than Eastern Europe. C) The drop of U152 in Southern Italy… I think we shouldn’t forget that the diffusion of this haplogroup and others linked was diluted by the coming of other haplogroups from the Balkans, specially if we dated the diffusion of U152 at thousands of years before it is usually thought. D) About the “Carmen Saliare” and ancient Latin …leave it! Don’t speak of arguments you don’t know.

Re: the problem of variance… I’ll treat it another time. My son has arrived from Venice for Christmas, and I want to stay with him.

« Last Edit: December 27, 2011, 12:39:14 AM by Maliclavelli » Logged

Maliclavelli


YDNA: R-S12460


MtDNA: K1a1b1e

alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #12 on: December 26, 2011, 07:04:00 PM »

A great topic and a good place for my first WorldFamilies post.

I agree that the importance of U152 in the Italic tribes is sometimes understated. I think it's because most folks on these forums are of British ancestry and therefore the Celtic angle gets more attention, and certainly a La Tene origin makes sense for these folks. Several downstream markers of L2 seem to support this (L20 and Z49), but we are a long way from confirming the link.

There is no doubt in my mind that the eastern Gaulish tribes (i.e. Helvetii, Boii, Lepontics) as well as the northern-Italic tribes (i.e. Umbri, Veneti) contained an important amount of U152. Umbria is in central Italy, however they were said to be in possession of lands up to the Po River at the time of the Etruscan conquest. Roman historians claimed that the Umbrians were descended from "ancient Gauls" and that the Veneti were indistinguishable from Gauls in every way except for their language. I think the cultural similarities the Romans observed between Gauls, Venetics, and Umbrians were a product of their shared ancestry many centuries earlier, perhaps during the Urnfield period but maybe even earlier.

The "in-between" U152 seem to be have been the Ligurians, with their Celto-Italic language. I think they best explain the high U152 frequency in Corsica as the Ligurians have an old presence there (see Menhirs) and were thought to have been excellent seafarers and were even known for their piracy.

As far as the Romans being the culprits for the spread U152, I just don't buy it for the following reasons:

1. People from all over the empire were dying to get into Rome, not to leave it.
2. The Romans founded as many cities in the eastern part of the empire than the west. That U152 colonists were selectively sent to the west doesn't make sense to me.
3. The Romans were probably a hybrid Y-DNA population at the time of their expansion (Latins/Etruscans/Neolithics/Greeks). I say this only because the drop in U152 is so drastic in southern Italy. The U152 frequency there is about what it is in places like East Germany, Belgium, and Southern England - not your typical "Italic" hotspots. For anyone who thinks that the first Italic tribes were identical to the historical Romans, I should point out that most of the oldest archaic Latin texts (i.e. Carmen Saliare) cannot be fully translated by modern Linguists.

As for variance, it has its negatives, but I think the arguments against it would apply for all areas. For example, Italy's strategic importance in the Mediterranean have made it a crossing ground for people for millenia. I would think that we would see a high U152 variance there, but we don't. Also, if STRs move up and down along a modal value, they would do so for Italians, French and Germans alike, unless of course you were born next to a nuclear power plant.

Merry Christmas / Buon Natale !

One interesting thing is there seems to be a clear non-Celtic Italic-like dialect along Atlantic facing Iberia, commonly known as Lusitanian.  This seems to be a continuation of the Italic or Celto-Italic non-Celtic dialects of the Ligurians, albeit broken by the Iberian and related non-IE dialects in SE Spain.  It seems to me that there was once some sort of contact network linking from the Adriatic to Atlantic Iberia and this was not the same network as that which linked the Celts.  However, these non-Celtic italic-like dialects are not united by cladex.  As far as I understand the Ligurian and Lusitanian areas are pretty different in terms of clade balance.  So, again, I would suggest that the establishment of the clade pattern predates the emergence of IE dialect areas.  I suspect that the spread of the R1b clades was achieved by IE speakers but before the dialects had formed.  The dialects may have formed as these groups then got linked into geographically determined trade and contact networks over the next 500 years or so. 
Logged
Diana
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 60


« Reply #13 on: December 30, 2011, 06:23:17 PM »



  Nice to see you here Rocca!

A great topic and a good place for my first WorldFamilies post.

I agree that the importance of U152 in the Italic tribes is sometimes understated. I think it's because most folks on these forums are of British ancestry and therefore the Celtic angle gets more attention, and certainly a La Tene origin makes sense for these folks. Several downstream markers of L2 seem to support this (L20 and Z49), but we are a long way from confirming the link.

There is no doubt in my mind that the eastern Gaulish tribes (i.e. Helvetii, Boii, Lepontics) as well as the northern-Italic tribes (i.e. Umbri, Veneti) contained an important amount of U152. Umbria is in central Italy, however they were said to be in possession of lands up to the Po River at the time of the Etruscan conquest. Roman historians claimed that the Umbrians were descended from "ancient Gauls" and that the Veneti were indistinguishable from Gauls in every way except for their language. I think the cultural similarities the Romans observed between Gauls, Venetics, and Umbrians were a product of their shared ancestry many centuries earlier, perhaps during the Urnfield period but maybe even earlier.

The "in-between" U152 seem to be have been the Ligurians, with their Celto-Italic language. I think they best explain the high U152 frequency in Corsica as the Ligurians have an old presence there (see Menhirs) and were thought to have been excellent seafarers and were even known for their piracy.

As far as the Romans being the culprits for the spread U152, I just don't buy it for the following reasons:

1. People from all over the empire were dying to get into Rome, not to leave it.
2. The Romans founded as many cities in the eastern part of the empire than the west. That U152 colonists were selectively sent to the west doesn't make sense to me.
3. The Romans were probably a hybrid Y-DNA population at the time of their expansion (Latins/Etruscans/Neolithics/Greeks). I say this only because the drop in U152 is so drastic in southern Italy. The U152 frequency there is about what it is in places like East Germany, Belgium, and Southern England - not your typical "Italic" hotspots. For anyone who thinks that the first Italic tribes were identical to the historical Romans, I should point out that most of the oldest archaic Latin texts (i.e. Carmen Saliare) cannot be fully translated by modern Linguists.

As for variance, it has its negatives, but I think the arguments against it would apply for all areas. For example, Italy's strategic importance in the Mediterranean have made it a crossing ground for people for millenia. I would think that we would see a high U152 variance there, but we don't. Also, if STRs move up and down along a modal value, they would do so for Italians, French and Germans alike, unless of course you were born next to a nuclear power plant.

Merry Christmas / Buon Natale !
Logged

R1b1a2a1a1b3 U152+ Z56+ Z144/Z145/Z146+ P312+ U106- M228.2- M160- M126- L4- L21- L2- L196- L176.2- DYS492=14 Roma, Italia.
Diana
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 60


« Reply #14 on: December 30, 2011, 07:07:12 PM »



  I am happy you are there Gio!!

I have written a lot about this here and on other forums. Nothing to say about Rich Rocca, whose paper about 1000 Genomes Project I did appreciate a lot, even though he has replied to me a little bit angrily on Dna-forums: there I am Claire, after that a French friend gave me his account (everybody knows that am I, and it seems it is right for everyone). I have posted some recent researches and next tests will say who is right and who is wrong.
I’ll reply to what Rocca says, because about the knowledge of Italy, of Glottology, of History etc. I presume not to be second to anybody.

Logged

R1b1a2a1a1b3 U152+ Z56+ Z144/Z145/Z146+ P312+ U106- M228.2- M160- M126- L4- L21- L2- L196- L176.2- DYS492=14 Roma, Italia.
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #15 on: December 31, 2011, 01:42:51 AM »

.... Here are the variance numbers by country. This is why I think U152 moved into Italy from other places.

U152 France_________:  Var=1.21 [Linear 36]  (N=39)   
U152 France_________:  Var=1.23 [Mixed 49]  (N=39)

U152 Germany________:  Var=0.95 [Linear 36]  (N=62)   
U152 Germany________:  Var=1.04 [Mixed 49]  (N=62)

U152 Swiss & Austria:  Var=0.94 [Linear 36]  (N=28)   
U152 Swiss & Austria:  Var=0.98 [Mixed 49]  (N=28)   

U152 Italy__________:  Var=0.87 [Linear 36]  (N=33)
U152 Italy__________:  Var=0.96 [Mixed 49]  (N=33)
...
I've been going through the P312xL21 file and trying to do a better job of categorizing U152 into clusters (in the variety column.) GD calculations are also now available for 111 marker haplotypes as well as 67. The spreadsheet is posted at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/R-P312Project/files/Haplotype_Data_R-P312xL21.zip

I took advantage of the latest SNP testing resolution and compared GDs' between people that were and weren't tested for some the new SNPs like Z36 and Z56. After taking this deep dive into it I can see that much more extensive testing of U152* folks for Z36 and Z56 should be undertaken. I believe the real U152* is definitely in the minority now. Of course L2 was always big, but its brothers Z36 and Z56 are quite interesting with a bit of a Central and Eastern European bent.

Our discussions should start to focus more on L2, Z36 and Z56, and not necessarily U152 as a whole.  I'm not sure there should be any magic that makes U152 have a greater affinity to a particular culture than L2, Z36, Z56 or some combination thereof including other clades like Z196 or some of U106's subclades.
Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>L705.2
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #16 on: December 31, 2011, 09:15:22 AM »

I would enjoy breaking U152 down into its component parts and having a look at their distributions. I see the U152 Project has already done a lot of that, although its long parenthetical lists of untested SNPs are a bit confusing. The recent flood of new SNPs has greatly complicated matters.

I think people will be treating U152 as a single thing for a long time to come. For one thing, it's easier; for another, the period in which U152 (as "S28") was discovered, around 2005, gave it ample time at center stage, without a lot of competing SNPs. It also enjoyed a very vocal and prolific advocate in David Faux, who made sure it was front and center and given credit for many of history's heroic warrior tribes and conquerors, from the Celts to the Cimmerians, from the Cimbri to the Vikings and Anglo-Saxons.
« Last Edit: December 31, 2011, 09:17:36 AM by rms2 » Logged

Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #17 on: December 31, 2011, 06:17:27 PM »

I would enjoy breaking U152 down into its component parts and having a look at their distributions. I see the U152 Project has already done a lot of that, although its long parenthetical lists of untested SNPs are a bit confusing. The recent flood of new SNPs has greatly complicated matters.
....
One of the U152 project admins, Steve G, says they have done a lot of work on analyzing the subclades.
Quote from: Biturges(Steve)
Maps of the three known sub-branches of U152 (Z36+, Z56+ and L2*(Z49- Z367-)) can be found in the U152 project results page HERE. In addition, a map has been created for the U152* (L2- Z36- Z56-). This one gives on overlook at what samples might be candidates for Z42/Z43 and Z192. All three SNPs are not yet available for testing. .....
All four maps have their samples highest density located North of the Alpes and pretty much radiates from there in every direction.
This is the web site he was referring to: http://www.familytreedna.com/public/R1b-U152/default.aspx?section=results

I think when you add Steve G's findings to the higher variance north of the Alps from our DNA projects, the evidence is building for a non-Italian origin.  I would say U152 is Alpine oriented, at the least - which of course, is Cisalpine Gaul, not the Italian Peninsula.
Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>L705.2
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #18 on: December 31, 2011, 07:47:29 PM »

Tibor Feher calculated variance from the Busby data for U152. This is a smaller number of haplotypes and fewer STRs.

Variance by Tibor F from Busby data
9font=courier]
Poland___ 3.00
East FR__ 2.89
Greece___ 2.75
Corsica__ 2.67
Sardinia_ 2.67
England__ 2.61
Portugal_ 2.55
Sicily___ 2.51
North IT_ 2.39
North FR_ 2.38
Spain____ 2.38
Ireland__ 2.33
[/font]
https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0Bwo12PDVxPwwZjExNTMwNDctZTFhNC00NzE4LThjYmEtMzg5ZGNjOGRkNTcx&hl=en_GB

Poland's count was only 5 but East France had 18 so I think that is meaningful.

Italy just never seems to comes up big on variance for U152, no matter how you cut it.
Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>L705.2
A.D.
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 310


« Reply #19 on: December 31, 2011, 11:40:15 PM »

Doesn't this show a west/southward cline from E.Europe?
Logged
Maliclavelli
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2146


« Reply #20 on: January 01, 2012, 03:17:50 AM »

I entered the hobby and bought my initial personal 37 marker haplotype 8 years ago. I soon expanded my interest to I1 haplogroup as a whole, and then y haplogroup I as a whole, and have made this my study since.
Haplogroup I is overwhelmingly a European haplogroup, supplemented by a small clade from the eastern (Armenian) part of today’s Turkey.

Perhaps the most interesting thing I have learned is how “recent” into the past is the collapse of the y tree to just a couple handfuls of branch lines. We now have approximately 10,000 haplogroup I haplotypes floating around in various public databases in the world. Based on that amount of data we find the y tree highly pruned to just a tiny number of limbs once one goes back further than 4, 5, or 6 thousand years.

[[ To go off on a more technical tangent for a moment, there is something called N dimensional haplotype space in which N STR haplotypes of today can each be represented by a point (or vector position). Each STR repeat value becomes one of the vector’s coordinates in this abstract space. Over 20,000 years ago there was a single haplogroup I founder’s haplotype. Let’s make him the origin of our N-space. One might have expected today’s thousands of measured haplogroup I haplotypes to form a cloud in N-space today, fanning out in all N directions from the origin, with the fanning distance somewhat large for the fast STR coordinates and fanning distance small for the slow STR coordinates --- a shape something like a generalized N dimensional football --- with this cloud diffused out from the origin being the result of 20,000 years of slow STR mutations. That is NOT what we see. If all today’s known haplotypes of haplogroup I were plotted in this N-space we would see a few dozen islands of densely located haplotypes, some islands very tiny and some huge like I1. The larger islands on close inspection might be seen to be clusters of smaller islands, forming archipelagoes. These few dozen islands will be separated by utter voids in N-space containing not a solitary haplotype. Extinction in action!]]

If we trace all of y haplogroup I back to the end of the Younger Dryas 11.5 thousand years ago (somewhat arbitrary point), there were just 11 branch lines then which are the founders or male line originators of today’s entire population numbering in the tens of millions (as sampled by our approximately 10,000 measured haplotypes)
.
See “Tree and Map for Haplogroup I” at http://knordtvedt.home.bresnan.net Those 11 branch lines from the end of Younger Dryas are all that survived from the single haplogroup I founder of slightly more than 20 thousand years ago.
There was very close to zero population growth in Europe through the last glacial maximum, wiping out just about every y line except a couple handfuls which survived to latter prosper.

Those 11 branch lines consist of:

The Dinaric/Disles branch (L621+)
The Isles branch (L161+)
The NF branch (only two known members; L880+; discovered just this last year.)
The I2a1*-F branch (P37xAll)
The Western/Alpine branch (L624+/L233+)
The M26+ branch
The L38+ branch
The M223+ branch
The I2b* branch (L415+)
The I2c* branch (L596+)
The I1 branch (M253+)

Of these eleven branches, six of them had been just formed from bifurcations from three 11.5 thousand years ago --- Dinaric/Disles and Isles had just parted ways, L38+ and M223+ had just parted, and I2b* and I2c* had just parted.

This knowledge of y haplogroup I tree structure over the last 20,000 years is primarily achieved from the collective interests and actions of many hobbyists who have participated in hounding industry for and then testing for evermore snps.
I seriously doubt that the academics would have ever pursued this y tree structure with such detail, or that industry would have expanded products to include so many more y snps without hobbyist clamorings.

So Happy New Year to all the hobbyists who have played a role in these discoveries. Ken (from Rootsweb)

I think the same should be said for hg. R. The few remained during the Younger Dryas lived probably in North Italy, where I have always put the Italian Refugium, and after they expanded in many waves. Probably hg. I and R have had the same destiny, and with them of course there were many females: U, K, R0a’b, H, HV1a’b’c, J/T, etc, like I have always said. Gioiello (from my home)
Logged

Maliclavelli


YDNA: R-S12460


MtDNA: K1a1b1e

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #21 on: January 01, 2012, 09:23:38 AM »

Tibor Feher calculated variance from the Busby data for U152. This is a smaller number of haplotypes and fewer STRs.

Variance by Tibor F from Busby data
9font=courier]
Poland___ 3.00
East FR__ 2.89
Greece___ 2.75
Corsica__ 2.67
Sardinia_ 2.67
England__ 2.61
Portugal_ 2.55
Sicily___ 2.51
North IT_ 2.39
North FR_ 2.38
Spain____ 2.38
Ireland__ 2.33
[/font]
https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0Bwo12PDVxPwwZjExNTMwNDctZTFhNC00NzE4LThjYmEtMzg5ZGNjOGRkNTcx&hl=en_GB

Poland's count was only 5 but East France had 18 so I think that is meaningful.

Italy just never seems to comes up big on variance for U152, no matter how you cut it.

It certainly seems that way. Of course, a lot depends on when U152 moved into Italy. Did U152 go there early enough that it should be considered mostly Italic in Italy? Or is it Ligurian? Or did it get there still later, with the Celts?
Logged

Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #22 on: January 02, 2012, 01:58:55 AM »

...
Variance by Tibor F from Busby data

Poland___ 3.00
East FR__ 2.89
Greece___ 2.75
Corsica__ 2.67
Sardinia_ 2.67
England__ 2.61
Portugal_ 2.55
Sicily___ 2.51
North IT_ 2.39
North FR_ 2.38
Spain____ 2.38
Ireland__ 2.33

....
Italy just never seems to comes up big on variance for U152, no matter how you cut it.

It certainly seems that way. Of course, a lot depends on when U152 moved into Italy. Did U152 go there early enough that it should be considered mostly Italic in Italy? Or is it Ligurian? Or did it get there still later, with the Celts?

I don't know about associating U152 with early Italic speakers or not as I don't understand how/when the Italo-Celt IE language branch split.

However, I don't see any reason to think that U152 got to Italy before it got to the Jutland Peninsula and Low Countries.

U152 Denmark&Benelux:  Var=1.06 [Linear 36]  (N=14)   
U152 Denmark&Benelux:  Var=1.31 [Mixed 49]  (N=14)

U152 Italy__________:  Var=0.87 [Linear 36]  (N=33)
U152 Italy__________:  Var=0.96 [Mixed 49]  (N=33)


I'm not declaring U152 is older along the Lower Rhine Valley and the Jutland, but U152 appears no older in Italy than in Benelux. If anything it is younger in Italy.

Let me put the shoe on the other foot for argument sake...
What's the positive evidence that U152 originated in Italy?
What's the positive evidence that U152 had a large presence among the early Italic speakers?
Is there any strong evidence that U152 wasn't among the earliest Celtic speakers?

If we are talking about associating with the language split, my guess would be that U152 was in the IE speaking groups that developed the Italo-Celt dialect of IE, and some U152 fell into both the proto-Italic and proto-Celtic speaking groups. I say this because U152 is as old as P312 and nearly as scattered, at least to the east and south. I also say that because U152 could easily be 4000 years old and is found in good numbers in both Celtic and Italic speaking areas. For that matter, Germanic areas too.

Here's what Wikipedia has to say about Terramare, the culture in the vicinity right before Rome formed.
Quote
Terremare is a technology complex mainly of the central Po valley, in Emilia, northern Italy,  dating to the Middle and Late Bronze Age ca. 1700-1150 BC.  ....
Great differences of opinion have arisen as to the origin and ethnographical relations of the Terramare folk. Brizio in his Epoca Preistorica advances the theory that they were the original Ligurians who at some early period took to erecting pile dwellings. Why they should have done so is difficult to see. Some of the Terramare are clearly not built with a view to avoiding inundation, inasmuch as they stand upon hills. The rampart and the moat are for defence against enemies, not against floods, and as Brizio brings in no new invading people till long after the Terramare period, it is difficult to see why the Ligurians should have abandoned their unprotected hut-settlements and taken to elaborate fortification. There are other difficulties of a similar character. Hence Luigi Pigorini regards the Terramare people as a lake-dwelling people who invaded the north of Italy in two waves from Central Europe (the Danube valley) at the end of the Stone Age and the beginning of the Bronze Age, bringing with them the building tradition which led them to erect pile dwellings on dry land, as well as Indo-European languages. These people he calls the Italici, to whom he attributes to the Villanovan culture.
Um....  I see that the Villanovan culture, who brought the Iron Age to Italy, used cremation, like the Urnfield folks.
« Last Edit: January 02, 2012, 02:30:51 AM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>L705.2
Maliclavelli
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2146


« Reply #23 on: January 02, 2012, 06:03:43 AM »

It seems that Claire has been banned again from Dna-forums. Evidently when this magic word was pronounced by Vincent Vizachero it didn’t matter, but if also RRocca pronounces it… Perhaps I am loved more by Celts than Italians, but, anyway, What's Claire to Me? (Explication for illiterate persons: “What's Hecuba to Me?” William S.)

I’ll reply to you and to all the others of Dna-forums about the variance and frequency, but I’d want you note that what you have just affirmed about the funeral rites of the “terramaricoli” isn’t exact:

“According to W. Ridgeway the dead were treated to inhumation: investigation, however, of the cemeteries shows that both inhumation and cremation were practiced, with cremated remains placed in ossuaries; practically no objects were found in the urns. Cremation may have been a later introduction”.

And the question has been put correctly, I think, by Rich Stevens: “Of course, a lot depends on when U152 moved into Italy. Did U152 go there early enough that it should be considered mostly Italic in Italy? Or is it Ligurian? Or did it get there still later, with the Celts?”
The answer, only a few years ago, was the last. Now we are questioning, and it is already something.

Logged

Maliclavelli


YDNA: R-S12460


MtDNA: K1a1b1e

Maliclavelli
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2146


« Reply #24 on: January 02, 2012, 06:21:25 AM »

Per l’Italia, che partecipa alla candidatura seriale transnazionale, è il 47° sito della Lista del Patrimonio Mondiale UNESCO. Le 19 aree archeologiche selezionate sul territorio italiano sono dislocate in cinque regioni: Lombardia, Veneto, Piemonte, Friuli Venezia Giulia e Trentino Alto Adige. Sono italiane le più antiche strutture palafitticole dell’area alpina, risalenti all’inizio del Neolitico, rinvenute sul lago di Varese, datate a ca. 5000 a.C. Il fenomeno si intensifica, tuttavia, durante l’Antica e la Media età del Bronzo (2200-1400 a.C.) per concludersi verso la fine del II millennio a.C. La maggiore concentrazione di palafitte è localizzata nella regione del lago di Garda, dove sono noti più di 30 abitati dislocati sia sulle sponde del lago, sia nei bacini inframorenici. Villaggi palafitticoli sono stati rinvenuti anche nei piccoli laghi alpini del Trentino e nei bacini del Piemonte. Insediamenti palafitticoli sono noti anche nella Pianura Padana nella fascia delle risorgive o lungo i fiumi, anche nella fascia pedemontana del Friuli.

The most ancient pile dwellers structures of the Alpine area are Italian, coming back to the beginning of Neolithic, found on Varese Lake, dated at about 5000 BC.
« Last Edit: January 02, 2012, 06:22:55 AM by Maliclavelli » Logged

Maliclavelli


YDNA: R-S12460


MtDNA: K1a1b1e

Pages: [1] 2 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


SEO light theme by © Mustang forums. Powered by SMF 1.1.13 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines LLC

Page created in 0.17 seconds with 18 queries.