Auvergne genetic history

[adamo]

I've always wondered about Italy's Volscian people...you know, Volcae in southern France, Volcae in southern Germany....I mean how suspicious is it that that there was a tribe in western France called Veneti and one of Italy's most famous provinces is called Veneto. Why is Parisi a common italian surname today, and also the name of the tribe that would found the capital of modern day France?

 

[adamo]

Personally, I don't think it's just by chance, considering the overwhelming historical evidence cited by reputed historians like Livy who spoke of multiple invasions by notable Gauls and their armies such as Brennus, Bellovesus etc. movements/migrations across the alps separated at times by hundreds or thousands of years.

 

[Nobody1]

@ Sile

I have looked into the sources again and mea culpa you seem to be right about the Cenomani;

Sir William Smith - Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography: Vol.I (1854)
Thus, during the great Gaulish war in B.C. 225, when the Boii and Insubres took up arms against Rome, the Cenomani, as well as their neighbours the Veneti, concluded an alliance with the republic, and the two nations together furnished a force of 20,000 men, with which they threatened the frontier of the Insubres. (Pol. 2.23, 24, 32; Strab. v. p.216.) Even when Hannibal invaded Cisalpine Gaul they continued faithful to the Romans, and furnished a body of auxiliaries, who fought with them at the battle of the Trebia. (Liv. 21.55.) After the close of the Second Punic War, however, they took part in the revolt of the Gauls under Hamilcar (B.C. 200), and again a few years later joined their arms with those of the Insubres: but even then the defection seems to have been but partial, and after their defeat by the consul C. Cornelius (B.C. 197), they hastened to submit, and thenceforth continued faithful allies of the Romans. (Liv. 31.10, 32.30, 39.3.) From this time they disappear from history, and became gradually merged in the condition of Roman subjects, until in B.C. 49 they acquired, with the rest of the Transpadane Gauls, the full rights of Roman citizens. (Dion. Cass. xli. 36.)

and also this:

Cicero - Cic. Balb. 14.31 - 56 BC
Etenim quaedam foedera exstant, ut Cenomanorum, Insubrium, Helvetiorum, Iapydum, non nullorum item ex Gallia barbarorum, quorum in foederibus exceptum est ne quis eorum a nobis civis recipiatur.
But there are in existence certain treaties, such as those with the Cenomani, Insubres, Helvetii and Iapudes, and also with some of the barbarians in Gaul, and in these treaties there is a saving clause that none of their people may be admitted by us to citizenship.

I was wrong;
The Cenomani did not fade into obscure oblivia - in fact they remained in the Po Valley (Transpadana) as Roman allies and had the same treaties in 56 BC (the Latin rights) as the Insubres did; Seven years later (49 BC) all the people of Cisalpine Gaul Cenomani and Insubres were granted the Roman Citizenship by Julius Caesar;

This means of course that the Cenomani [Iron-age LaTene Gauls] most def. had an impact on the modern-day pop. of the Po Valley (heritage) - equal to the Insubres (Umbrians); The chief-town of the Cenomani as recorded by Livius was Brixia modern-day Brescia;

Boattini et al 2013 tested 39 samples from Brescia and 51.2% (20 samples) were R1b-U152;

 

[Sile]

@ Sile

I have looked into the sources again and mea culpa you seem to be right about the Cenomani;

Sir William Smith - Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography: Vol.I (1854)
Thus, during the great Gaulish war in B.C. 225, when the Boii and Insubres took up arms against Rome, the Cenomani, as well as their neighbours the Veneti, concluded an alliance with the republic, and the two nations together furnished a force of 20,000 men, with which they threatened the frontier of the Insubres. (Pol. 2.23, 24, 32; Strab. v. p.216.) Even when Hannibal invaded Cisalpine Gaul they continued faithful to the Romans, and furnished a body of auxiliaries, who fought with them at the battle of the Trebia. (Liv. 21.55.) After the close of the Second Punic War, however, they took part in the revolt of the Gauls under Hamilcar (B.C. 200), and again a few years later joined their arms with those of the Insubres: but even then the defection seems to have been but partial, and after their defeat by the consul C. Cornelius (B.C. 197), they hastened to submit, and thenceforth continued faithful allies of the Romans. (Liv. 31.10, 32.30, 39.3.) From this time they disappear from history, and became gradually merged in the condition of Roman subjects, until in B.C. 49 they acquired, with the rest of the Transpadane Gauls, the full rights of Roman citizens. (Dion. Cass. xli. 36.)

and also this:

Cicero - Cic. Balb. 14.31 - 56 BC
Etenim quaedam foedera exstant, ut Cenomanorum, Insubrium, Helvetiorum, Iapydum, non nullorum item ex Gallia barbarorum, quorum in foederibus exceptum est ne quis eorum a nobis civis recipiatur.
But there are in existence certain treaties, such as those with the Cenomani, Insubres, Helvetii and Iapudes, and also with some of the barbarians in Gaul, and in these treaties there is a saving clause that none of their people may be admitted by us to citizenship.

I was wrong;
The Cenomani did not fade into obscure oblivia - in fact they remained in the Po Valley (Transpadana) as Roman allies and had the same treaties in 56 BC (the Latin rights) as the Insubres did; Seven years later (49 BC) all the people of Cisalpine Gaul Cenomani and Insubres were granted the Roman Citizenship by Julius Caesar;

This means of course that the Cenomani [Iron-age LaTene Gauls] most def. had an impact on the modern-day pop. of the Po Valley (heritage) - equal to the Insubres (Umbrians); The chief-town of the Cenomani as recorded by Livius was Brixia modern-day Brescia;

Boattini et al 2013 tested 39 samples from Brescia and 51.2% (20 samples) were R1b-U152;

I asked about the cenomani in relation with your comments regarding avergne , that is the connection with the Volcae as the Cenomani where neighbours of the volcae in southern France before travelling to the area of Verona, Brescia and Cremona ( that's where modern Italian historians place them )

On the other hand, if the tradition recorded by Cato (in Pliny, Nat. Hist. iii. 19. s. 23) is true, that the Cenomani formed a settlement near Massilia (modern Marseille), among the Volcae, this could indicate a route that the Cenomani took to Cisalpine Gaul in Italy. According to Livy, the Cenomani of Cisalpine Gaul arrived after the expedition of Bellovesus, led by Helitovius, and are credited with the foundation of Brixia, or Brescia.

We must not confuse these with the ancient Euganei ( Rhaetian?) before they got absorbed by the migrating Veneti starting from 1100BC or before.
The Alpine tribes of the Camunni and the Triumpilini, which bordered on them on the north, are expressly described by Pliny as of Euganean race, and were not therefore nationally connected with the Cenomani, though in his time at least united with them for administrative purposes.
The main tribe of these Euganei are the Stoni tribe
They were very probably a Pre-Indo-European people, ethnically related with the Ingauni, as proved by the similarity of the names. According to Pliny the Elder the Stoni people from Trentino were of the same stock as the Euganei.

Cato the Elder, in the lost book of Origines, counted among the major tribes Euganeans the Triumplini of Valtrompia and the Camunni of Val Camonica.^[2]
According to Livy they were defeated by the Adriatic Veneti and the Trojans

 

[MOESAN]

Reading the 2009 paper from Ramos-luis and other papers, I find it puzzling that there is a lack of I* marker in central France, basically Cavennes mountain ranges.

the paper only tested 89 people for the following marker
R1b -M269 , 28 = 31.46%
R1b-U152 , 15 = 16.84%
R1b-U106 , 3 = 3.37%
R1b-sry2627, 1 = 1.12%

E-M81 , 5 = 5.62%
E-M78 , 3 = 3.37%
E1b1b , 2 = 2.25%
E-M123 , 1 = 1.12%

J1 , 3 = 3.37%
J2 , 7 = 7.87%

G* , 8 = 9.0%

T1-M70 , 3 = 3.37%
K , 1 = 1.12% .............found to be T-M184 ( xM70)

R1a , 5 = 5.62%

and finally I* , 4 = 4.5%

The area was dominated by the Arverni tribe ( gallic) and its eastern neighbours the Sequani tribe ( a celtic-helvetic mix)

Why the lack of I marker is the issue, was this central european, "germanic"/ gothic /Burgundian marker avoiding the mountains of Auvergne?
- Is the E, J, T and G markers neolithic and another mountain range was sought as a haven in ancient times?
- We clearly see the 58% of R1b is the majority, a clear mix gallic-helvetic-liguri peoples (celts?)

Did the burgundians who ruled the area later really have I marker in their East-Germanic origins?

with U106 at 3,37%, I*(xI2a2) 3,37% and R1a 5,6% considering this I* has a a lot of chances to be overall Y-I1,(Maciamo gives 2% for Auvergne) we can say, proposing Burgundians were Eastern germanics (in Norway, R1b, R1a and I1 are at similar levels, but less R1a in Sweden and Denmark, but Goths and cousins in NW Poland could have taken some more R1a), these %s represent well enough this germanic invasion in east-Southeast Gallia for an amount of roughly 12% of Germanics there - reasonable bet

 

[adamo]

The "Var" region of extreme southeastern France has about 20% R-S28, Alsace has 23%, Auvergne has 17-18%, same goes for Nord Pas De Calais. Some studies on northwestern France have found 20% frequencies, others claim this is a weak spot for R-S28 but in nearby southwestern Belgium and central Belgium 20-22% are R-S28 I believe.

 

[MOESAN]

My interest is purely only the T marker , which is 5% in Alsace and 3.37% plus 1.12% K ( which is found to be T-M184 and not T1-M70) in Auvergne.
I do not know what other articles Maciano holds for France in respect for his percentage data and also haplo maps

Maciano must hold other data as the test states brittany at 13.5% of I marker while he shows only 8% on his site

all these surveys made in France are made on ridiculous samples for the most of them - in the alleged survey Brittany is well represented but I see no Y-E of any sort so as Maciamo produces weak but real percentage of Y-E in Brittany, I suppose his sample is bigger and more accurate - maybe could he answer you for we could know if this sample were included in his means?

 

[Sile]

all these surveys made in France are made on ridiculous samples for the most of them - in the alleged survey Brittany is well represented but I see no Y-E of any sort so as Maciamo produces weak but real percentage of Y-E in Brittany, I suppose his sample is bigger and more accurate - maybe could he answer you for we could know if this sample were included in his means?

As i shared information with you before, I will continue to share about the brittany area for you - if I have any.

 

[MOESAN]

I've always wondered about Italy's Volscian people...you know, Volcae in southern France, Volcae in southern Germany....I mean how suspicious is it that that there was a tribe in western France called Veneti and one of Italy's most famous provinces is called Veneto. Why is Parisi a common italian surname today, and also the name of the tribe that would found the capital of modern day France?

if VOLSCIAN is the reight spelling, you have to explain the lack of S in VOLQUE -concerning the personal name PARISI in Italy I personally doubt it traces back to the PARISI tribe of Lutecia in Gallia... concerning VENETI, look at other threads... some "hope" remains but very tiny

 

[Nobody1]

.The Alpine tribes of the Camunni and the Triumpilini, which bordered on them on the north, are expressly described by Pliny as of Euganean race, and were not therefore nationally connected with the Cenomani, though in his time at least united with them for administrative purposes.
The main tribe of these Euganei are the Stoni tribe
They were very probably a Pre-Indo-European people, ethnically related with the Ingauni, as proved by the similarity of the names. According to Pliny the Elder the Stoni people from Trentino were of the same stock as the Euganei.

Cato the Elder, in the lost book of Origines, counted among the major tribes Euganeans the Triumplini of Valtrompia and the Camunni of Val Camonica.^[2]
According to Livy they were defeated by the Adriatic Veneti and the Trojans

The Ingauni were Ligurians (acc. to Livius and Strabo) and if they are related to the Euganei (based on onomastics) than that would mean that the Euganei were also Ligurians;

Which is somewhat already confirmed in that the Stoni were clearly mentioned as being Ligurians in the Fasti Triumphales;
And acc. to Plinius [III/XXIV(XX)] the Stoni/Stoeni were the main tribe of the Euganeans;

 

[Sile]

The Ingauni were Ligurians (acc. to Livius and Strabo) and if they are related to the Euganei (based on onomastics) than that would mean that the Euganei were also Ligurians;

Which is somewhat already confirmed in that the Stoni were clearly mentioned as being Ligurians in the Fasti Triumphales;
And acc. to Plinius [III/XXIV(XX)] the Stoni/Stoeni were the main tribe of the Euganeans;

I did agree with your statement entirely recently, but have found that the Euganean race where a branch of Rhaetic of late and as I supplied Angela with an ancient Italian theory that rhaetic where a branch of liguri , then it seems the Euganean race split from rhaetic and not from liguri, but they where all inter-related

 

[adamo]

Rhaetics were NOT the Ligurians, they were a northern most extension of the Etruscans into Rhaetia. The Euganei were LIGURiANs not raetians

 

[adamo]

The Ligurians had something in common with early Insubres type tribes from the Danube region of Europe that probably pre-dated the Gallic invasions but were of Celtic indo-European origin.

 

[MOESAN]

Rhaetics were NOT the Ligurians, they were a northern most extension of the Etruscans into Rhaetia. The Euganei were LIGURiANs not raetians

1) Rhaetic is a confusing name at some stage, because it is evident now there were two different languages spoken in the known Rhaetia: one close to etruscan, an other seemingly close to archaic western I-Ean, so not too far for what we know of ligurian (it is true, not too clear): so the truht is maybe between...

2) at linguistic level, I do'nt see EUGANEI and INGAUNI as evident cognate names: phonetics is not a "scrabble" game; U # N // A # AU at first sight; keep in mind some strange phonetical evolutions can take place with (long) time AND respecting some rules, BUT in contemporeanous names this sort of differences in spelling seem to me excluding common signification, if not common origin...

 

[Nobody1]

I did agree with your statement entirely recently, but have found that the Euganean race where a branch of Rhaetic of late and as I supplied Angela with an ancient Italian theory that rhaetic where a branch of liguri , then it seems the Euganean race split from rhaetic and not from liguri, but they where all inter-related

The Raeti remain a mystery although so much is known and recorded - from Archaeology to Linguistics and Historical documentation;

For example;
Ampass (Demlfeld) in Tyrol - an archaeology site in Tyrol/Austria where many Raetic graves were excavated and examined; The site belongs to the Fritzens-Sanzeno culture [Iron-age] and also includes a bronze object with Raetic inscriptions; The interesting part is that they have also found a bronze object with a Venetic inscription;

Bronze horse-head with Venetic inscription [vhilone.i. /filo)nej/] - Demlfeld, Tyrol
http://www.archaeotirol.at/

I think the Raeti are not a homogenous peoples;
They must have been including an Etruscan/Tyrsenian element along with an Indo-European Venetic (and pos. also Keltic) elements with also pre-Indo-European (Ötzi/Mondsee/Altheim) type elements; The Alps were a much important district ever since the Neolithic (Mondsee/Altheim/Remedello) and also due to the Amber trade; The entire 'Raetic complex' needs a real close examination;

 

[Sile]

The Raeti remain a mystery although so much is known and recorded - from Archaeology to Linguistics and Historical documentation;

For example;
Ampass (Demlfeld) in Tyrol - an archaeology site in Tyrol/Austria where many Raetic graves were excavated and examined; The site belongs to the Fritzens-Sanzeno culture [Iron-age] and also includes a bronze object with Raetic inscriptions; The interesting part is that they have also found a bronze object with a Venetic inscription;

Bronze horse-head with Venetic inscription [vhilone.i. /filo)nej/] - Demlfeld, Tyrol
http://www.archaeotirol.at/

I think the Raeti are not a homogenous peoples;
They must have been including an Etruscan/Tyrsenian element along with an Indo-European Venetic (and pos. also Keltic) elements with also pre-Indo-European (Ötzi/Mondsee/Altheim) type elements; The Alps were a much important district ever since the Neolithic (Mondsee/Altheim/Remedello) and also due to the Amber trade; The entire 'Raetic complex' needs a real close examination;

I support this, plus of the 350 plus venetic inscriptions found, 6 are in western slovenia, 18 in Austria towards modern innsbruck and the remainder in veneto and friuli ( mostly este area ). Maybe the etruscans came from the raeti and was the old theory and not the raeti came from the etruscans.
But italians claim that all north italy, tyrol and part of southern germany where liguri ( ancient types and not the genoese types)

 

[adamo]

Tyrol was settled by Lombards, alemmanics and Bavarians but also has a Gallic substratum according to studies (20-30% u-152 in Trentino). Everything west of that is very predominantly Gallic with possible Lombard minorities near Trentino, Friuli or rare parts of Lombardy. Tuscany is Gallic, Liguria is Celtic with probably minor Ancient Greek presence. An oriental origin group or ancient Greeks may also have settled near Veneto in lower frequencies as well. 15-25% of both E3b and J2 are found in parts of Liguria and Veneto. The rest of the north seems untouched by this. The north is still Celtic territory. 42% R1b in Veneto, 40% Umbria, 48% Trentino-Alto Adige, 53% Tuscany, 54% Piedmont, 60% Lombardy, 48% Liguria, 41% Friuli, 50-60% Emilia-Romagna; it's present at about 55% in the north. The center drops to 50-35%; with even exceptional lows of 25% in a few rare cities. The south has 25-30%.

 

[Sile]

Tyrol was settled by Lombards, alemmanics and Bavarians but also has a Gallic substratum according to studies (20-30% u-152 in Trentino). Everything west of that is very predominantly Gallic with possible Lombard minorities near Trentino, Friuli or rare parts of Lombardy. Tuscany is Gallic, Liguria is Celtic with probably minor Ancient Greek presence. An oriental origin group or ancient Greeks may also have settled near Veneto in lower frequencies as well. 15-25% of both E3b and J2 are found in parts of Liguria and Veneto. The rest of the north seems untouched by this. The north is still Celtic territory. 42% R1b in Veneto, 40% Umbria, 48% Trentino-Alto Adige, 53% Tuscany, 54% Piedmont, 60% Lombardy, 48% Liguria, 41% Friuli, 50-60% Emilia-Romagna; it's present at about 55% in the north. The center drops to 50-35%; with even exceptional lows of 25% in a few rare cities. The south has 25-30%.

you are talking about 1000 years later. when Rome conquered Tyrol the romans fought against the Rhaetic tribes , not lombards

 

[adamo]

I never mentioned Romans fighting rhaetics or Lombards I just had a comment to make in the moment.

 

[adamo]

I was simply mentioning that Scandinavian I1 lineages run abnormally high (20%) in the Trentino-Alto Adige/Tyrol and Friuli-Venezia-Giulia region has the same frequency. Molise has 15% I1 and Veneto has 10% I believe; all this due to the Lombards.