New map of R1b-S28 (U152)

Thank you. Lusatian has much in common with the Villanovian culture which itslef is the direct ancestor of Latin people therefore Lusatian people might have spoken some sort of Italic language.
Btw what do you imply when you say that it is too early to be Germanic? you mean before the Grimm's Law?

Principally this concerns Grimm's Law, yes, but also the general question of ethnogenesis. I have to add that not everybody agrees with the Pre-Germanic hypothesis of Euler, ie that Grimm's Law only occured in the 1st century BC, but even the tradionalist view concedes that it's unlikely that Grimm's Law occured before the start of the iron age (as a reminder, most Celtic loanwords into Proto-Germanic are subject to Grimm's Law).

Regarding the Villanovan Culture (which, as you correctly point out, has parallels with the Lusatian Culture, but so does Hallstatt), I thought they were generally considered Etruscan?
 
Principally this concerns Grimm's Law, yes, but also the general question of ethnogenesis. I have to add that not everybody agrees with the Pre-Germanic hypothesis of Euler, ie that Grimm's Law only occured in the 1st century BC, but even the tradionalist view concedes that it's unlikely that Grimm's Law occured before the start of the iron age (as a reminder, most Celtic loanwords into Proto-Germanic are subject to Grimm's Law).

Aside from the Grimm laws, didn't they speak some sort of German during the Nordic bronze age? In the same way that Lusitanian spoke some sorts of Celt (without the loss of initial "p") probably since the bronze age.

Regarding the Villanovan Culture (which, as you correctly point out, has parallels with the Lusatian Culture, but so does Hallstatt), I thought they were generally considered Etruscan?

Etruscan culture was founded on a Villanovian basis that was colonized by Near easterns (sea people from Anatolia?) folks.
 
Aside from the Grimm laws, didn't they speak some sort of German during the Nordic bronze age? In the same way that Lusitanian spoke some sorts of Celt (without the loss of initial "p") probably since the bronze age.

Yes, of course. This is more or less the point that Euler makes, about the Proto-Germanic language before the first sound shift, ie the so-called "Pre-Germanic" or "Pre-Proto-Germanic" language. The problem however is twofold: the first issue is how, if not via Grimm's Law, do we define the Germanic languages against the backdrop of the western Indo-European spectrum. The second issue tackles the same problem from the opposite direction: if we go back sufficiently far, we'd have to expect that all (well, western) branches of Indo-European would have been more or less variants of one dialect continuum.

Otherwise, I absolutely agree that from the archaeological perspective, it would seem tempting to assume that the people of the Nordic Bronze Age spoke some kind of early Proto-Germanic, which would have to be in the described "Pre-Germanic" stage, both by the traditionalist model (early iron age) and by Euler's model (1st century BC).

Etruscan culture was founded on a Villanovian basis that was colonized by Near easterns (sea people from Anatolia?) folks.

The way that I understood it (please correct me if I'm wrong!), the Villanovan culture continues without any discontinuity into historic times as the Etruscan city states.
 
Well, not just 'Proto-Goths' but Eastern Germanic peoples in general. The legend about the East Germanic peoples coming from Scandinavia is well-known, but from the archaeological perspective it's very hard to verify this. As I mentioned, the (bronze age / early iron age) Lusatian Culture, which is the northeastern outgrowth of the Urnfield Culture, is certainly too early to be Germanic in any way. The Pomeranian Culture, which follows it, is also questionable in it's identity. The only archaeological cultures we can be certain about that they're East Germanic (because they fall into the times of historic record!) are really the Przeworsk, Wielbark and Chernyakhov cultures.


Taranis, you ask yourself very very smart questions that means that you already know that East Germanic (in fact authentic Germanic people) were predominantly Z280 while those guys with U106 and I1 haplo were just Germanized (U106 gave not IE substrate) but still can not reconcile yourself with the idea.
 
Taranis, you ask yourself very very smart questions that means that you already know that East Germanic (in fact authentic Germanic people) were predominantly Z280 while those guys with U106 and I1 haplo were just Germanized (U106 gave not IE substrate) but still can not reconcile yourself with the idea.

You're basically supposing that the origin of the Germanic peoples lies further to the east? Sorry, that is impossible. There's multiple reasons due to which really speak against that. For starters, the Corded Ware Culture, for which R1a samples are known (the Eulau site in Germany, dated to 2600 BC), predates the presumed age of U106. There's a number of reasons to assume that the Corded Ware people already spoke an early form of Indo-European, notably common Germanic and Balto-Slavic words that predates the Centum/Satem split, as well as loanwords from PIE into the Uralic languages. Since the Battle Axe Culture in Scandinavia was an offshot of Corded Ware, it stands to reason that there were already Indo-Europeans in Scandinavia by the start of the Bronze Age, and that, by extension, the people of the Nordic Bronze Age spoke some form of Pre-Proto-Germanic. Another issue is that there's too much continuity between the Nordic Bronze Age and the Pre-Roman iron age of northern Europe.
 
The way that I understood it (please correct me if I'm wrong!), the Villanovan culture continues without any discontinuity into historic times as the Etruscan city states.

I believe I share the views of Spongetaro about Villanovians: I see them as Indo-European speaking people coming from Central Europe (South the Danaw river?), of Italic stock - Etruscans appears like a newcoming foreign elite among a previous villanovian culture (but is the etruscan known language the language of this new elite or that of Villanovians? the so called non
-I-E rhaetian language is a problem: is it autochtonous or brought by cousins of the new Etruscan elite? or this new elite has nothing to do with 'etruscan' language that was there beofre it? it can change a lot of thing, because some of the Rhaetians appears to have spoken a phonetically 'hardening' (unvoicING) consonnants language that could explain the germanic mutation in some way (the second mutation only maybe?) - So we could be wrong and Villanovia be an 'etruscan' (known) language culture that afterwards influenced I-E italic languages? or the meeting place of two different languages? (Toscan dialect is very curious for stops and it and south italian dialects are the only one which kept on with unvoiced intervocalic stops compared to PRESENT DAY North Italy languages and ALL the other neo-latine languages of Western Europe... - FOR I KNOW AT THIS VERY TIME I PREFER SEE THE VILLANOVIANS AS ITALIC PEOPLE BUT MORE OSCO-OMBRIAN SPEAKING THAN LATIN, waiting more
 
I believe I share the views of Spongetaro about Villanovians: I see them as Indo-European speaking people coming from Central Europe (South the Danaw river?), of Italic stock - Etruscans appears like a newcoming foreign elite among a previous villanovian culture (but is the etruscan known language the language of this new elite or that of Villanovians? the so called non
-I-E rhaetian language is a problem: is it autochtonous or brought by cousins of the new Etruscan elite? or this new elite has nothing to do with 'etruscan' language that was there beofre it? it can change a lot of thing, because some of the Rhaetians appears to have spoken a phonetically 'hardening' (unvoicING) consonnants language that could explain the germanic mutation in some way (the second mutation only maybe?) - So we could be wrong and Villanovia be an 'etruscan' (known) language culture that afterwards influenced I-E italic languages? or the meeting place of two different languages? (Toscan dialect is very curious for stops and it and south italian dialects are the only one which kept on with unvoiced intervocalic stops compared to PRESENT DAY North Italy languages and ALL the other neo-latine languages of Western Europe... - FOR I KNOW AT THIS VERY TIME I PREFER SEE THE VILLANOVIANS AS ITALIC PEOPLE BUT MORE OSCO-OMBRIAN SPEAKING THAN LATIN, waiting more

you need to take into consideration the earlier POLADA culture and the later ESTE culture
 
There was already a map of this haplogroup.
Gorgeous map!
I think it is obvious descendants now - U152 is haplogroup of the Celts of Early La Ten.

But why has Corsica many descendants? There is an assumption. Not all of the Celts, who steel Roman citizenship in 1BC - 2AC, sought to Rome. The very promising was to shift to Corsica, where the coastal areas of Corsica could have a career, as well as indigenous people of the island led patriarchal, secluded life in the center of the island.

I should be added that Corsica was a colony of Genoa during many centuries and be able to take migrants from the metropolis.
 
This may have already been stated; I admit I didn't look at every post:

It would seem the distribution and its lack thereof in certain areas would agree with the collapse of the Roman empire and the begining of the Holy Roman (Germanic Empire). Specifically, the hot red spots in Lombardy and Austria were those decidedly settled by the Lombards, although several of the migrating tribes at this time (Saxons, Vandals, Visigoths, etc) may have also had this signature to a lesser degree, taking it to North Africa and Crimea. Towards the end of the end of the Roman Empire, it wouldn't be surprising to see many of the soldiers coming from these northern areas and seeding children, perhaps to a smaller degree.

Most instresting, and telling it think, is when you look at the islands of Corisica, Sardinia, Sicily and (later) Crete. A little more hot, and probably less diverse than the mainland. That's the begining of a non-native, Germanic caste in the first millennium.
 
Nice map indeed but we now are at the point where the U152 entity should be questioned through its known main subclades. Also spotted areas who be interesting to study more carefully. One example : the Ligurian land like the Cinqueterre ; these isolated places might prove interesting to link U152 to the Ligurian culture. Corsica and Liguria have in common these villages packed on the slopes of mountains ; I see a clear common culture.
The question / remark above about the poor link of U152 spread with places like Spain is a good one and can be generalized to the rest of the map : romans clearly didn't spread U152 in any significant amounts.
I see 3 "limits" : one between "gaule" and "Aquitania - Iberia" [U152 / DF27 clades], another one between Gaul and "Holland" [U152 / U106] , another one in the Alps between Suisse and Austria ; this last one is a surprise but it helps proving that U152 probably started around the upper Rhone valley and expanded north and south of the western Alps. The northern part was later defeated by German migrations and this probably accounts for the difference between north and south.
So, one early clade of U152 was probably Ligurian (possibly in association with some other group) and other U152 branches may account for some Celtic expansion. I can see no "limit" between L21 and U152 as if these 2, although fighting were considering each other as part of a same entity - "celtic ?"
 
R1b u152 seems to dominate Italians, blond haired blue eyed ones or very Celtic looking ones in particular, an extension of the Gaul/Swiss race into Italy, we all know of the many Gallic tribes that migrated from all over France to Italy with bellovesus, we know about the even older golasecca Gaul culture in Lombardy, in fact, the ancient Romans themselves may have in part descended from men that crossed the Swiss alps into Italy long ago, forgetting about their Gallic cousins and eventually conquering them thousands of years later with the rise of the Roman Empire, the original Romans, the "Latini" tribe centred around modern day Latina province in lazio, Italy, where probably a Gallic group deep in italian territory, that eventually conquered the rest of italics and would create the Roman Empire, wat drastically separates the French from the Italians is the Greco-Turk and north-African influence the southern Italians acquired; northern Italy was bombarded by Germanic, but, particularly, Gallic genetic influence. My own grandfather was from Pisa ( northern Tuscany) in a region where about 52% of males are R1b, and the majority is u152. He had hi-liter blonde hair, and baby blue eyes, through a genographic test on his son (my uncle, mothers brother) it was discovered that he was R1b u152+ positive.
 
first point: I cannot at this stage pretend to link pigmentation to Y-DNA
second point: compared to Y-R1b-L21, the Y-R1b-U152 seems late in W-Europe, and the link it seems having with AND LA TENE CELTS AND ITALIC PEOPLE, confirms for me this more eastern gravity center (look at presence in SW Poland and the Lusace-Culture link too with Villanovians)- So I don' believe as Adamo (I respect his opinion nevertheless) the Italics never got down from Switzerland - but it is true that all these people were 'cousins' in some part but I find better think in Ligurians concerning Switzerland and the W-Alps...
for Germanics, I don't think Y-R1b-U152 were the core of them - I suppose a proto-germanic was spoken yet in N-Europe before U152 won some weight there (the Cimbers Teutons story is perhaps not only a tale, and they were maybe Celts???)
 
lol, what? the italics never got down from switzerland ? so what explains the maximal 40-45% R1b u152 across much of north-central italy ?
 
as for the germanics they where high u106 obviously.
 
A great majority of "Romans" in Iberia were not from the Italian Peninsula but from other parts of the empire, including Slavic and North African lands. Apparently, this was also the case in the British Isles.

Source? The conquest of Iberia was carried out during the times when Roman armies were by and large made up of Romans. The conquest of Britain was carried out at a time when even many "Roman" emperors were North Africans and Near Easterners. The "Roman" armies of those later times were quite different in ethnic composition than those of earlier centuries. I am not aware of any Roman governors of Iberia being from North Africa and the Near East, while Britain has well known examples (Quintus Lollius Urbicus, Lucius Alfenus Senecio, Gaius Valerius Pudens, Caracalla, etc.)
 
Hi Maciamo, there's some new data on R1b-U152 in the Netherlands...A sample of 500 (larger than previous samples) found it at 7.2%, apparently more in line with neighboring areas. Will you update the map at all?

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1216-U152-Z367-in-the-Netherlands

Might actually look more like this:

Haplogroup-R1b-S28.png
 
lol, what? the italics never got down from switzerland ? so what explains the maximal 40-45% R1b u152 across much of north-central italy ?

if you look well at the distribution, it seems the denser zones are very more on the western side than on the eastern one: more ancient, with Ligurians, I suppose, plus some Celts contacts?
and Y-R-U152 even if concentrated around the W-Alps, was found more eastern, if less dense:
I suppose Terramare people began later the latine speakers but they took a lot of Ligurians with them on their way - but the italic language formed more easternly around south Hungary N-Croatia, I think - the later italics, osco-umbrian speakers, did not meat the Ligurians in the N-E Italy and carried less Y-R-U152 even if they did some percentages too; NO, for me, Italics did not came from Switzerland, at this stage of my knowledge at least...and their phonetic is more remote from celtic than was ligurian phonetic (this one not too well known, I confess) -
I red somewhere, and it could explain some odd things, that some rare enough latine words show phonetic evolution close to the celtic or other ones, strange compared with the core of global italic evolution -
 
we need regional survey
I 'm almost sure the U152 percentages vary quite a lot according to regions in the netherlands (By instance I think Frisians have less)...
 
I saw in an other forum (helas I did not note the references of the surveys) a Y-R1b-U152 percentage of 7,5% in North Wales and 19,4% in E-N-E Scotland (around Fraserburgh? not far from Aberdeen) - the samples were under 100 everytime, it is true -
N-E England had 3,6%, N-W England 6,4%, EE England 8,1%, E-Anglia 16,7%, S-E England (close) 15,4%, and two different results for two regions:
S-W England: 16,0% and 8,3% and C England 9,7% and 0,0% !!!
but I suppose Maciamo had these %s ?
 

This thread has been viewed 173023 times.

Back
Top