PDA

View Full Version : U152: Comparison of the areas most mapped



Acque agitate
11-28-2013, 10:57 AM
Recently we have obtained numerous and massive new results concerning certain area far away. I refer to the Netherlands (500 samples) and Sardinia (1200 samples) to which I add the Tuscany (the project 1000 Genomes) to the fact that this area has provided an adequate number of U152 and the samples obtained are referred to a historic very narrow area (to me it appears that the samples have been collected in town not known).
Therefore I havedecided to update a table given long ago by Richard.
I ask you what you think.

Rathna
11-28-2013, 11:47 AM
Recently we have obtained numerous and massive new results concerning certain area far away. I refer to the Netherlands (500 samples) and Sardinia (1200 samples) to which I add the Tuscany (the project 1000 Genomes) to the fact that this area has provided an adequate number of U152 and the samples obtained are referred to a historic very narrow area (to me it appears that the samples have been collected in town not known).
Therefore I havedecided to update a table given long ago by Richard.
I ask you what you think.


975


About the Tuscans tested: more than the half were women, and it seems to me that our women haven't the Y, but like the other women are XX.

Acque agitate
11-28-2013, 11:59 AM
Thanks Ratha,
I update the table as soon as possible by acquiring data from the 1000 Genomes project.

Acque agitate
11-28-2013, 12:32 PM
I updated the file by entering 56 males for Tuscany (well it is to me).
The old file has remained.
I thank Rathna for quick viewing.

R.Rocca
11-28-2013, 01:03 PM
Recently we have obtained numerous and massive new results concerning certain area far away. I refer to the Netherlands (500 samples) and Sardinia (1200 samples) to which I add the Tuscany (the project 1000 Genomes) to the fact that this area has provided an adequate number of U152 and the samples obtained are referred to a historic very narrow area (to me it appears that the samples have been collected in town not known).
Therefore I havedecided to update a table given long ago by Richard.
I ask you what you think.

Thanks for this summary.

It is interesting how much our knowledge of the geographical distribution of U152 subclades has changed in the last two years alone....

- We knew that L2 made up larger percentage of U152 outside of Italy before, but now we know that L2 outside of Italy is primarily Z49 and Z367 in France and Britain.
- There are still a lot of still hidden lineages for L2(xZ49,Z367) especially in Italy, Switzerland and the Rhine (so basically outside of France and Britain).
- Z367+Z34+ seems to have a stronger presence in the Low Countries than outside of it.
- Within central Italy, L2 was curiously much lower than U152(xL2) in the FTDNA samples, and now we know it is mostly attributed to Z36 and Z56.
- Within Tuscan Z36, almost all of it is Z54/Z143 which looks like a regional group as it has been almost non-existent in FTDNA samples.
- In central Italy, Z56 sub lineages seem to be more frequent in Z144/Z145/Z146
- We didn't know what to expect in Sardinia, but now we know U152 is heavily Z192 (and probably higher with its parent PF6658/Z193). It could be that this is due to an initial founder effect from coastal Tuscany as Z192 is also important there.

R.Rocca
11-28-2013, 01:19 PM
Thanks for this summary.

It is interesting how much our knowledge of the geographical distribution of U152 subclades has changed in the last two years alone....

- We knew that L2 made up larger percentage of U152 outside of Italy before, but now we know that L2 outside of Italy is primarily Z49 and Z367 in France and Britain.
- There are still a lot of still hidden lineages for L2(xZ49,Z367) especially in Italy, Switzerland and the Rhine (so basically outside of France and Britain).
- Z367+Z34+ seems to have a stronger presence in the Low Countries than outside of it.
- Within central Italy, L2 was curiously much lower than U152(xL2) in the FTDNA samples, and now we know it is mostly attributed to Z36 and Z56.
- Within Tuscan Z36, almost all of it is Z54/Z143 which looks like a regional group as it has been almost non-existent in FTDNA samples.
- In central Italy, Z56 sub lineages seem to be more frequent in Z144/Z145/Z146
- We didn't know what to expect in Sardinia, but now we know U152 is heavily Z192 (and probably higher with its parent PF6658/Z193). It could be that this is due to an initial founder effect from coastal Tuscany as Z192 is also important there.

I'll reply to my own post since it is a major observation that I forgot to mention:

- Z36 forms a larger percentage of U152 frequency from western Switzerland to Tuscany than anywhere else and seems not to have been heavily involved with L2 in France or Britain. The Z36 samples from around the Rhine and Britain in the FTDNA project seem to be a product of American testing bias as it is absent in the GoNL study and an unpublished database from Britain that I have access to.

haleaton
11-28-2013, 01:31 PM
Just a quick check, so the Sardinia data included DF103, for example, or had data files to extract it? Great stuff.

mafe
11-28-2013, 02:07 PM
Are 23407934 C>G and 23119461 G>A downstream of PF6658?

MitchellSince1893
11-28-2013, 04:32 PM
...we know that L2 outside of Italy is primarily Z49 and Z367 in France and Britain...and an unpublished database from Britain that I have access to.


Are you seeing the same split seen in this unpublished data, seen in the FTDNA data where Z49+ Z142+ is more British-French while Z49+ Z142- seems more German-French? Pie charts of FTDNA results here:
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1092-U152-L2-Z49-Z142-quot-Country-of-Origin-quot-Percentages-for-England-and-France&p=19707&viewfull=1#post19707

vettor
11-28-2013, 05:01 PM
Thanks for this summary.

It is interesting how much our knowledge of the geographical distribution of U152 subclades has changed in the last two years alone....

- We knew that L2 made up larger percentage of U152 outside of Italy before, but now we know that L2 outside of Italy is primarily Z49 and Z367 in France and Britain.
- There are still a lot of still hidden lineages for L2(xZ49,Z367) especially in Italy, Switzerland and the Rhine (so basically outside of France and Britain).
- Z367+Z34+ seems to have a stronger presence in the Low Countries than outside of it.
- Within central Italy, L2 was curiously much lower than U152(xL2) in the FTDNA samples, and now we know it is mostly attributed to Z36 and Z56.
- Within Tuscan Z36, almost all of it is Z54/Z143 which looks like a regional group as it has been almost non-existent in FTDNA samples.
- In central Italy, Z56 sub lineages seem to be more frequent in Z144/Z145/Z146
- We didn't know what to expect in Sardinia, but now we know U152 is heavily Z192 (and probably higher with its parent PF6658/Z193). It could be that this is due to an initial founder effect from coastal Tuscany as Z192 is also important there.

This fits with the Ghiotto 2013 papers stating tuscans came from southern german alpine areas into current tuscan lands 2800 years ago. IIRC it stated in the same paper that any anatolion connection was not earlier than 7600 years ago, meaning nearly 5000 years of living in "bavarian/swabian lands" . Does this not also fit with Hammer's picture of U152, that is, from central Germany to alpine Germany then into Italy!
Throw in the legends that tuscans and raetics are same or similar peoples then .........;)

We just need to change and say Tuscans are from Raetic and not Raetics came from Tuscans

Anglecynn
11-28-2013, 05:07 PM
I'll reply to my own post since it is a major observation that I forgot to mention:

- Z36 forms a larger percentage of U152 frequency from western Switzerland to Tuscany than anywhere else and seems not to have been heavily involved with L2 in France or Britain. The Z36 samples from around the Rhine and Britain in the FTDNA project seem to be a product of American testing bias as it is absent in the GoNL study and an unpublished database from Britain that I have access to.

So does this suggest that the U152 in Britain is mostly of French (as in the geographical region) origin, or do i misunderstand?

R.Rocca
11-28-2013, 07:05 PM
So does this suggest that the U152 in Britain is mostly of French (as in the geographical region) origin, or do i misunderstand?

In general terms, that seems to be the case, and even more so for L2 lineages.

Rathna
11-28-2013, 09:37 PM
This fits with the Ghiotto 2013 papers stating tuscans came from southern german alpine areas into current tuscan lands 2800 years ago. IIRC it stated in the same paper that any anatolion connection was not earlier than 7600 years ago, meaning nearly 5000 years of living in "bavarian/swabian lands" . Does this not also fit with Hammer's picture of U152, that is, from central Germany to alpine Germany then into Italy!
Throw in the legends that tuscans and raetics are same or similar peoples then .........;)

We just need to change and say Tuscans are from Raetic and not Raetics came from Tuscans

I have fought for many years against the current theory that Etruscans came from Anatolia, which was the theory that practically everyone followed here, also because it explained the link of Tuscans with Ashkenazi Jews (all my disadventures began during 2008 when deCODEme first and after 23andMe found that I had about 20% of Ashkenazi ancestry and it is useless that I remind you all that my denying this brought me to my banishment from DNA-forums at the end of that year). They all followed the theory of Herodotus and also the author of this last paper named by Vettor followed then this theory. They sponsored the paper of Brisighelli et al., I broken in pieces on many forums, and the theory of the Anatolian origin of some Tuscan mtDNA U7, thought by everyone of Asian origin, was corrected that same year by van Oven et al., "Updated comprehensive phylogenetic tree of global human mitochondrial DNA variation", Hum Mutat 30: 386-394, and now everyone knows that U7b "dates to about 6-11 kya and includes several mtDNAs found predominantly in Europe [...], indicating a likely evolution in situ" (p. 8).
So long I fought against this position that I wouldn't here begin to fight against the opposite theory. That Etruscans came from North and not from Asia Minor was the theory of the other Greek historians, Dionysius of Alicarnassus. And the link of the Etruscan language with Rhaetian and Camun is stronger than the link with the language of the stelae of Lemnos, which may be explained like a colony of Etruscan mariners (and don't forget that the TWRSHSH were amongst the Sea Peoples and that they came from the Aegean Sea and not from Italy is all to be demonstrated).
But this solution shouldn't permit to Vettor to explain Etruscans like "German" invaders of Italy:
1) Germans lived then probaly in North Germany and Southern Scandinavia
2) I consider Rhaetians, Camuns and Etruscans anyway peoples of the ancient Italian pool, who probably derived from what is for me the "Italian Refugium"
3) I have said many times that three groups of languages derived from that Refugium: a Caucasian one (ancient Sardinian and Basque), a Thyrrenian one (Etruscan, Rhaetian, Camun) and the Indo-European one.
4) Anyway the Etruscans who arrived in Tuscany superimposed themselves to Osco-Umbrian Indo-Europeans, but, as the diffusion of hg. R-U152 demonstrates, the peopling was more ancient of the languages spoken.

Solothurn
11-29-2013, 03:50 PM
Re France

My cluster's (A:a:a:a: U152>YCA=19,22+dys447=27) common ancestor 1,000-1,100 AD

A man born 1028, with 1066 being a significant date!

This direct Y ancestor would certainly boost FTDNA sales on SNP testing :behindsofa:

alan
11-29-2013, 04:18 PM
So it seems U152 might have emerged somewhere in the interface between the two subclades -around the lower Rhine or south Germany?


I'll reply to my own post since it is a major observation that I forgot to mention:

- Z36 forms a larger percentage of U152 frequency from western Switzerland to Tuscany than anywhere else and seems not to have been heavily involved with L2 in France or Britain. The Z36 samples from around the Rhine and Britain in the FTDNA project seem to be a product of American testing bias as it is absent in the GoNL study and an unpublished database from Britain that I have access to.

Cascio
11-29-2013, 05:14 PM
Recently we have obtained numerous and massive new results concerning certain area far away. I refer to the Netherlands (500 samples) and Sardinia (1200 samples) to which I add the Tuscany (the project 1000 Genomes) to the fact that this area has provided an adequate number of U152 and the samples obtained are referred to a historic very narrow area (to me it appears that the samples have been collected in town not known).
Therefore I havedecided to update a table given long ago by Richard.
I ask you what you think.

WELCOME TO ALL ON THIS EXCELLENT FORUM.

There's something I don't understand in the table above.

Richard clearly wrote that Tuscan Z36 was mainly Z54+Z143+ but this table shows a zero frequency for this lineage in Tuscany.

emmental
11-29-2013, 05:18 PM
I'll reply to my own post since it is a major observation that I forgot to mention:

- Z36 forms a larger percentage of U152 frequency from western Switzerland to Tuscany than anywhere else and seems not to have been heavily involved with L2 in France or Britain. The Z36 samples from around the Rhine and Britain in the FTDNA project seem to be a product of American testing bias as it is absent in the GoNL study and an unpublished database from Britain that I have access to.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Rich, but I think what he is saying is that a much higher percentage of people from England and the Palatinate have been tested, therefore the numbers can be misleading.

It is also important to remember that a lot of the Z36 in the Palatinate originated in Switzerland. After the 30 Years War the Palatinate was repopulated by many Swiss. A generation or two later these Palatines immigrated to Pennsylvania, North Carolina and New York and have been in the States since the colonial days. There are a lot of Americans who claim German heritage when it is actually Swiss.

vettor
11-29-2013, 05:26 PM
I have fought for many years against the current theory that Etruscans came from Anatolia, which was the theory that practically everyone followed here, also because it explained the link of Tuscans with Ashkenazi Jews (all my disadventures began during 2008 when deCODEme first and after 23andMe found that I had about 20% of Ashkenazi ancestry and it is useless that I remind you all that my denying this brought me to my banishment from DNA-forums at the end of that year). They all followed the theory of Herodotus and also the author of this last paper named by Vettor followed then this theory. They sponsored the paper of Brisighelli et al., I broken in pieces on many forums, and the theory of the Anatolian origin of some Tuscan mtDNA U7, thought by everyone of Asian origin, was corrected that same year by van Oven et al., "Updated comprehensive phylogenetic tree of global human mitochondrial DNA variation", Hum Mutat 30: 386-394, and now everyone knows that U7b "dates to about 6-11 kya and includes several mtDNAs found predominantly in Europe [...], indicating a likely evolution in situ" (p. 8).
So long I fought against this position that I wouldn't here begin to fight against the opposite theory. That Etruscans came from North and not from Asia Minor was the theory of the other Greek historians, Dionysius of Alicarnassus. And the link of the Etruscan language with Rhaetian and Camun is stronger than the link with the language of the stelae of Lemnos, which may be explained like a colony of Etruscan mariners (and don't forget that the TWRSHSH were amongst the Sea Peoples and that they came from the Aegean Sea and not from Italy is all to be demonstrated).
But this solution shouldn't permit to Vettor to explain Etruscans like "German" invaders of Italy:
1) Germans lived then probaly in North Germany and Southern Scandinavia
2) I consider Rhaetians, Camuns and Etruscans anyway peoples of the ancient Italian pool, who probably derived from what is for me the "Italian Refugium"
3) I have said many times that three groups of languages derived from that Refugium: a Caucasian one (ancient Sardinian and Basque), a Thyrrenian one (Etruscan, Rhaetian, Camun) and the Indo-European one.
4) Anyway the Etruscans who arrived in Tuscany superimposed themselves to Osco-Umbrian Indo-Europeans, but, as the diffusion of hg. R-U152 demonstrates, the peopling was more ancient of the languages spoken.

Yes on your comments, except for
#1 = There was no Germans in southern germany until 300AD
#2 = I do not call it italian Refugium but call it Alpine Refugium because not all the peoples became Italian eventually
#3 = Camun are Euganei people , connected with the Paleoveneti, they are not Etruscan. the only contact the camuni had with etruscans was in the trading town of Cologna Veneta

vettor
11-29-2013, 05:28 PM
So it seems U152 might have emerged somewhere in the interface between the two subclades -around the lower Rhine or south Germany?

Mr. hammers map states U152 was in central germany, then moved south to southern germany ( swabian/black forest areas )

R.Rocca
11-29-2013, 10:16 PM
Mr. hammers map states U152 was in central germany, then moved south to southern germany ( swabian/black forest areas )

Mr. Hammers map seems to be full of inaccuracies.

R.Rocca
11-29-2013, 10:20 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, Rich, but I think what he is saying is that a much higher percentage of people from England and the Palatinate have been tested, therefore the numbers can be misleading.

It is also important to remember that a lot of the Z36 in the Palatinate originated in Switzerland. After the 30 Years War the Palatinate was repopulated by many Swiss. A generation or two later these Palatines immigrated to Pennsylvania, North Carolina and New York and have been in the States since the colonial days. There are a lot of Americans who claim German heritage when it is actually Swiss.

Correct, especially the British Z36 samples in the FTDNA project seem to be the product of high percentage of testers of Isles origin. That is likely less the case for Germany, but still at play. The important Swiss frequency seems to b valid.

R.Rocca
11-29-2013, 10:21 PM
WELCOME TO ALL ON THIS EXCELLENT FORUM.

There's something I don't understand in the table above.

Richard clearly wrote that Tuscan Z36 was mainly Z54+Z143+ but this table shows a zero frequency for this lineage in Tuscany.

I think they were all Z54+ Z143+.

Diana
11-30-2013, 07:04 PM
I have fought for many years against the current theory that Etruscans came from Anatolia, which was the theory that practically everyone followed here, also because it explained the link of Tuscans with Ashkenazi Jews (all my disadventures began during 2008 when deCODEme first and after 23andMe found that I had about 20% of Ashkenazi ancestry and it is useless that I remind you all that my denying this brought me to my banishment from DNA-forums at the end of that year). They all followed the theory of Herodotus and also the author of this last paper named by Vettor followed then this theory. They sponsored the paper of Brisighelli et al., I broken in pieces on many forums, and the theory of the Anatolian origin of some Tuscan mtDNA U7, thought by everyone of Asian origin, was corrected that same year by van Oven et al., "Updated comprehensive phylogenetic tree of global human mitochondrial DNA variation", Hum Mutat 30: 386-394, and now everyone knows that U7b "dates to about 6-11 kya and includes several mtDNAs found predominantly in Europe [...], indicating a likely evolution in situ" (p. 8).
So long I fought against this position that I wouldn't here begin to fight against the opposite theory. That Etruscans came from North and not from Asia Minor was the theory of the other Greek historians, Dionysius of Alicarnassus. And the link of the Etruscan language with Rhaetian and Camun is stronger than the link with the language of the stelae of Lemnos, which may be explained like a colony of Etruscan mariners (and don't forget that the TWRSHSH were amongst the Sea Peoples and that they came from the Aegean Sea and not from Italy is all to be demonstrated).
But this solution shouldn't permit to Vettor to explain Etruscans like "German" invaders of Italy:
1) Germans lived then probaly in North Germany and Southern Scandinavia
2) I consider Rhaetians, Camuns and Etruscans anyway peoples of the ancient Italian pool, who probably derived from what is for me the "Italian Refugium"
3) I have said many times that three groups of languages derived from that Refugium: a Caucasian one (ancient Sardinian and Basque), a Thyrrenian one (Etruscan, Rhaetian, Camun) and the Indo-European one.
4) Anyway the Etruscans who arrived in Tuscany superimposed themselves to Osco-Umbrian Indo-Europeans, but, as the diffusion of hg. R-U152 demonstrates, the peopling was more ancient of the languages spoken.

Wouldn't the Umbrians be more Z56 then L2 and more closely associated with integrating with the Etruscans?

R.Rocca
11-30-2013, 09:39 PM
Wouldn't the Umbrians be more Z56 then L2 and more closely associated with integrating with the Etruscans?

Yes, no and maybe :)

I think it is a little bit of a difficult situation, but I think L2 moved into areas already held by Z56 and also by many older Neolithic lineages (G2a etc.).

Rathna
11-30-2013, 09:46 PM
Wouldn't the Umbrians be more Z56 then L2 and more closely associated with integrating with the Etruscans?

If we look at the diffusion of R-U152, we see that the highest percentage doesn't follow the separation between Etruscan language and Osco-Umbrian to East-South and Ligurians, from Versilia and Apuan Apennine to North-West, nor the presence of the presumed Celt people of the Po Valley: then the people are older than the languages spoken in Ancient Italy.
We know that these R-U152-s are above all Z56 but also Z192, but, like I have said elsewhere, we have also some L2* (of the paragroup) which will give us many surprises, as it is demonstrated by the Sardinian samples, by that of Acque Agitate and I presuppose that of Bedini etc.
I repeat what I have always said: that these R-U152 are for me the original and the oldest ones.

Bolgeris
11-30-2013, 10:42 PM
If we look at the diffusion of R-U152, we see that the highest percentage doesn't follow the separation between Etruscan language and Osco-Umbrian to East-South and Ligurians, from Versilia and Apuan Apennine to North-West, nor the presence of the presumed Celt people of the Po Valley: then the people are older than the languages spoken in Ancient Italy.
We know that these R-U152-s are above all Z56 but also Z192, but, like I have said elsewhere, we have also some L2* (of the paragroup) which will give us many surprises, as it is demonstrated by the Sardinian samples, by that of Acque Agitate and I presuppose that of Bedini etc.
I repeat what I have always said: that these R-U152 are for me the original and the oldest ones.

Yes i remember many years ago..
yours theories..
and
do you wrote me that, for you, in Italy ...
U152+ were the ancients Italics or Rhetics..

and may be, only some U152 clusters, in North Italy, were
ancestral.. celtic or germanic.. ...= (L20+ or L2+) as me and Grassi..
B)
Mah..

Cascio
11-30-2013, 10:44 PM
If we look at the diffusion of R-U152, we see that the highest percentage doesn't follow the separation between Etruscan language and Osco-Umbrian to East-South and Ligurians, from Versilia and Apuan Apennine to North-West, nor the presence of the presumed Celt people of the Po Valley: then the people are older than the languages spoken in Ancient Italy.
We know that these R-U152-s are above all Z56 but also Z192, but, like I have said elsewhere, we have also some L2* (of the paragroup) which will give us many surprises, as it is demonstrated by the Sardinian samples, by that of Acque Agitate and I presuppose that of Bedini etc.
I repeat what I have always said: that these R-U152 are for me the original and the oldest ones.

Where does Z36 fit into your scheme. This lineage seems to range from western Switzerland to northern Tuscany.

Rathna
11-30-2013, 11:20 PM
Where does Z36 fit into your scheme. This lineage seems to range from western Switzerland to northern Tuscany.

Cascio, in these last times I am interested above all to the most ancient subclades of hg. R, from R1b1* to R-Z2105 (mine) to R-L51, because I think that about those we are deciding of the origin of hg. R and of my theory of the Italian Refugium. I have followed less the subclades, but perhaps you know that I defended the Italian origin of R-U152 since the times of David Faux and Rootsweb, when seemed that every R-U152 in Italy were of Celt origin. Now I think that the problem is complex, and even though U152 may be born in Italy or nearby, certainly it migrated to north and perhaps came again to Italy with Celts or even Germans. Then I think that every haplotype should be studied deeply and only with the Full Y we'll be able to reconstruct all these migrations, but if you say that Z36 is found above all from Switzerland to Tuscany, this could be the place of its ancient origin. We are in the same places, I think, also for all the other subclades, more or less, of R-U152.

P.S. I think having responded with this also to Bolgeris, just because what I have said is due also to hundreds of letters we have exchanged in these last years (Belgieri, Grassi and me).

Diana
12-01-2013, 12:05 AM
At the end of the day we are all U152! :-) Is there a time line forming now for the subclades? Is there a breakdown of a possible time frame for each clade? Thanks!

Rathna
12-01-2013, 06:04 AM
At the end of the day we are all U152! :-) Is there a time line forming now for the subclades? Is there a breakdown of a possible time frame for each clade? Thanks!

I did my hypothesis and have done it also here, already when I said that the haplotypes with DYS492=14 were the most ancient ones, but this wasn't the thinking of Rocca for instance. At this point only the ancient DNA will be able to respond, but you know that many lines went extinct and it won't be easy.
In other cases the frequency or the variance decide, but you know not for Italy.

Diana
12-01-2013, 07:48 AM
I did my hypothesis and have done it also here, already when I said that the haplotypes with DYS492=14 were the most ancient ones, but this wasn't the thinking of Rocca for instance. At this point only the ancient DNA will be able to respond, but you know that many lines went extinct and it won't be easy.
In other cases the frequency or the variance decide, but you know not for Italy.

Someone here on the old DNA forum told me a story of what happened to many men from Palestrina who were massacred. But that is just one record, there are numerous others.

Rathna
12-01-2013, 08:11 AM
Someone here on the old DNA forum told me a story of what happened to many men from Palestrina who were massacred. But that is just one record, there are numerous others.

I don't know which episode you were referring to (did you mean Palestrina, the ancient Praeneste? but in which time?).
Anyway the extinction isn't due to massacres etc, but it is the genetics: like it happens for the surnames, as time passes only a few lines survive and the most part go extinct. Of course this happened when people were a few and it needs a great lapse of time.
Imagine how many hg. R there were 25,000 years ago (see the R* found in Siberia), but only two lines have survived: R1 and R2; or how many mtDNA K like ours, but only 3 lines survive: K1, K2 and K3 (and found only recently).

palamede
12-02-2013, 03:53 PM
I don't know which episode you were referring to (did you mean Palestrina, the ancient Praeneste? but in which time?).


Wikipedia for Palestrina :

"Its citizens were offered Roman citizenship in 90 BC in the Social War, when concessions had to be made by Rome to cement necessary alliances. In Sulla's second civil war, Gaius Marius the Younger was blockaded in the town by the forces of Sulla (82 BC). When the city was captured, Marius slew himself, the male inhabitants were massacred in cold blood, and a military colony was settled on part of its territory."

Rathna
12-02-2013, 04:29 PM
Wikipedia for Palestrina :

"Its citizens were offered Roman citizenship in 90 BC in the Social War, when concessions had to be made by Rome to cement necessary alliances. In Sulla's second civil war, Gaius Marius the Younger was blockaded in the town by the forces of Sulla (82 BC). When the city was captured, Marius slew himself, the male inhabitants were massacred in cold blood, and a military colony was settled on part of its territory."

I thank you, Palamede, for remembering this to me, but I could say to you what I said to Diana:

Anyway the extinction isn't due to massacres etc, but it is the genetics: like it happens for the surnames, as time passes only a few lines survive and the most part go extinct. Of course this happened when people were a few and it needs a great lapse of time.
Imagine how many hg. R there were 25,000 years ago (see the R* found in Siberia), but only two lines have survived: R1 and R2; or how many mtDNA K like ours, but only 3 lines survive: K1, K2 and K3 (and found only recently).

Diana
12-02-2013, 06:12 PM
I thank you, Palamede, for remembering this to me, but I could say to you what I said to Diana:

Anyway the extinction isn't due to massacres etc, but it is the genetics: like it happens for the surnames, as time passes only a few lines survive and the most part go extinct. Of course this happened when people were a few and it needs a great lapse of time.
Imagine how many hg. R there were 25,000 years ago (see the R* found in Siberia), but only two lines have survived: R1 and R2; or how many mtDNA K like ours, but only 3 lines survive: K1, K2 and K3 (and found only recently).


Yes I understand, lines can daughter out and go extinct and then of course events occur like massacres and genocides over the ages that will also wipe out populations.

The Sabines also have interesting history.

"The Sabines withdrew to their camp, allowing the Romans time to levy additional troops. Tarquinius, believing Rome's military weakness lay in its lack of horsemen, doubled the number of the equites.[2]
A second battle was then fought. The Romans, desiring to cut off the enemy's means of escape, sent rafts of burning logs down the Anio to destroy the bridge over the river by fire. In battle, the Sabine infantry pressed the Romans, and seemed to be winning against the Roman centre. However the Roman horsemen flanked the Sabine infantry, routed them, and impeded their flight from the battle. Many of the Sabines were unable to escape with their lives, both because of the pursuit of the cavalry and also because of the destruction of the bridge. Some of the fleeing Sabines drowned in the Anio; their arms drifted down the river into the Tiber and past Rome, and the Romans recognised this as a sign of victory even before word of the outcome of the battle arrived in the city.[3]
Tarquinius determined to press his victory. He firstly piled up and burnt the spoils he had vowed to Vulcan, and he sent back to Rome the prisoners and booty he had captured. He then proceeded, with his army, into the Sabine territory. The Sabines hastily raised a fresh army, but were defeated again. They then sued for peace."

"The legend of the Sabine women[edit]
Main article: Rape of the Sabine Women
Legend says that the Romans abducted Sabine women to populate the newly built Rome. The resultant war ended only by the women throwing themselves and their children between the armies of their fathers and their husbands. The Rape of the Sabine Women ("rape" in this context meaning "kidnapping" rather than sexual violation, see raptio) became a common motif in art; the women ending the war forms a less frequent but still reappearing motif.
According to Livy, after the conflict the Sabine and Roman states merged, and the Sabine king Titus Tatius jointly ruled Rome with Romulus until Tatius' death five years later. Three new centuries of Equites were introduced at Rome, including one named Tatienses, after the Sabine king.
A variation of the story is recounted in the pseudepigraphal book of Jasher (see Jasher 17:1-15)."

" Ancient historians were still debating the specific origins of the Sabines. Zenodotus of Troezen claimed that the Sabines were originally Umbrians that changed their name after being driven from the Reatine territory by the Pelasgians. However, Porcius Cato argued that the Sabines were a populace named after Sabus, the son of Sancus (a divinity of the area sometimes called Jupiter Fidius).[4] In another account mentioned in Dionysius's work, a group of Lacedaemonians fled Sparta since they regarded the laws of Lycurgus as too severe. In Italy, they founded the Spartan colony of Foronia (near the Pomentine plains) and some from that colony settled among the Sabines. According to the account, the Sabine habits of belligerence (aggressive or warlike behavior) and frugality (prudence in avoiding waste) were known to have derived from the Spartans."

Maybe the Z56 Umbrians were a group of Spartans, could explain the differences genetically???;-)))) Wouldn't that be something!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabines