New population isolates identified in the eastern Italian Alps

Nobody1 said:
Coia et al 2013 -
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0081704

138 samples from the Venetian areas/valleys (Adige/Primiero/Fiemme)

3.6% K-M9 [5 samples]

9.4% R1b-M269 [13 samples]
2.1% R1b-L51 [3 samples]
0.7% R1b-L11 [1 samples]
4.3% R1b-P312 [6 samples]
1.4% R1b-SRY2627 [2 samples]
0.7% R1b-L21 [1 samples]
26.0% R1b-U152 [36 samples]
6.5% R1b-U106 [9 samples]

5.0% R1a-M17 [7 samples]

18.1% G-M201 [25 samples]

4.3% I1-M253 [6 samples]
0.7% I2-M223 [1 samples]
2.1% I2-M423 [3 samples]

5.7% E-V13 [8 samples]
0.7% E-V22 [1 samples]

1.4% J1-M267 [2 samples]
2.1% J2a [3 samples]
2.8% J2b [4 samples]

[2 samples n.a.]

@ Sile
Do you see a connection between Vindelici, Veneti, Lacus Venetus, Vennones and Venostes?

Acc. to Strabo the Vennones were Vindelici and acc. to Ptolemy the Vennones only dwelt in the Raetia part (not Vindelicia part) and only Venetic inscriptions have been found across Raetia; Maybe its all an own (broader Alpine) Indo-European branch - akin to Keltic but more like Venetic in specifics;

Strabo - IV/VI
But the Licattii, the Clautinatii, and the Vennones proved the boldest amongst the Vindelici; and the Rucantii and Cotuantii amongst the Rhæti.
Click to expand...

below is basically the tribes
Sources tell of the first contact of Romans to Noricum in the Apenninon (Alps) 170 BC. From then to the Roman conquest of Tyrolean places in 15 BC to later a bunch of local tribes where named by sources:
Tridentini in the Atesis valley (around Trento),
Anauni (Non Valley),
Isarci (in the Etsch valley around Bozen),
Venostes in the Isara valley (Vinschgau),
Atacini in the Atax valley (Eisack/Isarco),
Scaredrani (in the Eggen valley?),
Saevates in the Byrrus valley (Puster valley),
Laianoi in the young Dravus valley (East Tyrol),
Focunates in the young Aenus valley and on the Likas river (around Landeck)
and Breuni in the Aenus valley (around Innsbruck).

-Vindelici are modern swabians and northern tyrol people.
-Veneti are ancient venetic mixed with Eugenei which are tridentini, camuni and stoeni tribes
-Lucus Venetus is Lake Constance
-Vennones are mixed Raeti and Carni
- Venostes similar to Vennones
- laianoi are norici people
- Breuni according to strabo are illyrian/venetic people.........18 venetic inscriptions have been found between Veneto border and Innsbruck

I see Vindelici, raetic and carni as similar people and add Venetic and illyrian in early iron-age to this mix and then add Norici to this list in middle iron-age. But a historian said Vindelici are Raetic people.

Note - illyrian in these notes means northern illyrian and pannonians


BTW as I stated about VENETIA, take also note that the term
Venezia-Friuli-Giulia means Veneto , Friuli and Julian mountains , which are istrians..........different term to VENETIA
 
Sile said:
below is basically the tribes
Sources tell of the first contact of Romans to Noricum in the Apenninon (Alps) 170 BC. From then to the Roman conquest of Tyrolean places in 15 BC to later a bunch of local tribes where named by sources:
Tridentini in the Atesis valley (around Trento),
Anauni (Non Valley),
Isarci (in the Etsch valley around Bozen),
Venostes in the Isara valley (Vinschgau),
Atacini in the Atax valley (Eisack/Isarco),
Scaredrani (in the Eggen valley?),
Saevates in the Byrrus valley (Puster valley),
Laianoi in the young Dravus valley (East Tyrol),
Focunates in the young Aenus valley and on the Likas river (around Landeck)
and Breuni in the Aenus valley (around Innsbruck).

-Vindelici are modern swabians and northern tyrol people.
-Veneti are ancient venetic mixed with Eugenei which are tridentini, camuni and stoeni tribes
-Lucus Venetus is Lake Constance
-Vennones are mixed Raeti and Carni
- Venostes similar to Vennones
- laianoi are norici people
- Breuni according to strabo are illyrian/venetic people.........18 venetic inscriptions have been found between Veneto border and Innsbruck

I see Vindelici, raetic and carni as similar people and add Venetic and illyrian in early iron-age to this mix and then add Norici to this list in middle iron-age. But a historian said Vindelici are Raetic people.

Note - illyrian in these notes means northern illyrian and pannonians


BTW as I stated about VENETIA, take also note that the term
Venezia-Friuli-Giulia means Veneto , Friuli and Julian mountains , which are istrians..........different term to VENETIA
Click to expand...

But are they all connected?

The only Indo-European language (inscriptions/archaeology) found in Raetia are Venetic inscriptions;
And Raetia was occupied by the Vennones (Ptolemy) but are a Vindelic tribe (Strabo);
i.e. possibly the Vindelici, Vennones, Veneti, Lacus Venetus and Venostes are therefor all linked and from a broader Indo-European branch - more like the Venetic branch than the Keltic branch;

PS: Strabo mentioned that the Breuni are Illyrians (only Illyrians) like the Genauni; no mention of Veneti;
And since when are the Julian Alps part of Istria? do not take notes - just look at the map;
Julische_Alpen.png
 
Nobody1 said:
But are they all connected?

The only Indo-European language (inscriptions/archaeology) found in Raetia are Venetic inscriptions;
And Raetia was occupied by the Vennones (Ptolemy) but are a Vindelic tribe (Strabo);
i.e. possibly the Vindelici, Vennones, Veneti, Lacus Venetus and Venostes are therefor all linked and from a broader Indo-European branch - more like the Venetic branch than the Keltic branch;

PS: Strabo mentioned that the Breuni are Illyrians (only Illyrians) like the Genauni; no mention of Veneti;
And since when are the Julian Alps part of Istria? do not take notes - just look at the map;
Julische_Alpen.png
Click to expand...

hmmm, i was wrong venezia-frilui-guilia includes trentino and south tyrol
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triveneto

Named after Roman province X ( ten )


inreagards to other question - I believe they where all related except for Vindelici ............unless a historian ( which I cannot remember ) was correct in saying the vindelici where a branch of the raetic

Unsure but
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Historische_Karte_CH_Rome_1.png

http://www.figuren-modellbau.de/kelten-vindeliker.html

and some say vindelici where illyrians
http://books.google.com.au/books?id...ved=0CFYQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=vindelici&f=false
 
Sile said:
inreagards to other question - I believe they where all related except for Vindelici ............unless a historian ( which I cannot remember ) was correct in saying the vindelici where a branch of the raetic

Unsure but
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Historische_Karte_CH_Rome_1.png

http://www.figuren-modellbau.de/kelten-vindeliker.html

and some say vindelici where illyrians
http://books.google.com.au/books?id...ved=0CFYQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=vindelici&f=false
Click to expand...

Well thats exactly the point;
Thats the ultimate question (Illyrians) - to which Indo-European branch did all these tribes Vindelici, Veneti, Vennones, Venostes, Breuni, Genauni belong to;

Strabo is very clear in that the Breuni and Genauni were Illyrians and dwelling in the middle of Raetia (Alps) and Horaz in turn associates the Breuni and Genauni with the Vindelici; Likewise Strabo clearly records the Vennones to be a tribe of the Vindelici; And only Venetic inscriptions have occurred in these areas (Vennones areas -Ptolemy); Herodotus also clearly associates the Adriatic Enetoi with the Illyrians; Venetic is neither Keltic nor Italic and in other words this broader pan-Alpine Indo-European realm is most prob. all connected and of the Illyrian branch; Raeti/Raetia is just an collective exonym term for a host of tribes; Strabo has a good passage for that in IV/VI;
 
Illyrians were maybe a confederation, in fact (ancients and old scholars saw Illyrians everyplace in Europe before putting the "curser" a little bit lower!)- linguistically, the North Illyriricum space was rather 'venetic' speaking, and 'venetic' considered as close enough to 'italic', when southern Illyricum space would have been the true 'illyrian' speaker region, with a language closer to dacian and thracian (and dardanian?); it seems the dominant opinion among scholars toda, but based, it's true, upon a scarce linguistic data for Illyricum (personal names for the most) -
 
Nobody1 said:
Well thats exactly the point;
Thats the ultimate question (Illyrians) - to which Indo-European branch did all these tribes Vindelici, Veneti, Vennones, Venostes, Breuni, Genauni belong to;

Strabo is very clear in that the Breuni and Genauni were Illyrians and dwelling in the middle of Raetia (Alps) and Horaz in turn associates the Breuni and Genauni with the Vindelici; Likewise Strabo clearly records the Vennones to be a tribe of the Vindelici; And only Venetic inscriptions have occurred in these areas (Vennones areas -Ptolemy); Herodotus also clearly associates the Adriatic Enetoi with the Illyrians; Venetic is neither Keltic nor Italic and in other words this broader pan-Alpine Indo-European realm is most prob. all connected and of the Illyrian branch; Raeti/Raetia is just an collective exonym term for a host of tribes; Strabo has a good passage for that in IV/VI;
Click to expand...

we know today that the term illyria was a geographical area, similar to the term iberian or nordic. we know the illyrians started their push from around the danube in 450BC to head south, so its logical they where a central european people. Clearly strabo saw these illyrians in the alps, they where still there in his time.
I said a while ago that Illyrian + Gallic created Celtic in the north, maybe this is a stretch, but we see celtic absorbtion of illyrian lands in the alps, then along the danube until modern hungary , then south into modern bosnia and serbia. Basically the illyrians by the time the Romans arrived in the balkans where absorbed by the celts.
La tene and Halstatt both in Raetic and vindelici and noricum lands.......its just fits.

The very ancient northern Illyrians in the north where the Nori tribe, when the Taurisci gallic people invaded , these nori where renamed norici . Taurisci where gallic people.

please link this strabo passage
 
Sile said:
we know today that the term illyria was a geographical area, similar to the term iberian or nordic. we know the illyrians started their push from around the danube in 450BC to head south, so its logical they where a central european people. Clearly strabo saw these illyrians in the alps, they where still there in his time.
Click to expand...

The Illyrians were an Indo-European branch;
If the Venetic is Illyrian - than the Illyrian branch is equally close to the Keltic and Italic branch;

J. Gvozdanovic - Venetic language [Heidelberg Uni. (2012)]
http://www.jolr.ru/files/(83)jlr2012-7(33-46).pdf

And Herodotus specifically states that the Enetoi ''who live on the Adriatic'' are Illyrian - Ἰλλυριῶν Ἐνετοὺς;
And only Venetic inscriptions have occurred in Venetia and Raetia; But the Veneti were never recorded in Raetia - only Vindelic tribes (Vennones/Breuni/Genauni) who are like wise called Illyrian;

So it seems that they were all connected and Illyrian;

Sile said:
I said a while ago that Illyrian + Gallic created Celtic in the north, maybe this is a stretch, but we see celtic absorbtion of illyrian lands in the alps, then along the danube until modern hungary , then south into modern bosnia and serbia
Click to expand...

That applies to the Iapodes:

Strabo - IV/VI & VII/V
IV/VI Near to these regions dwell the Iapodes, close to them is [the Mount] Ocra. Formerly the Iapodes were numerous, inhabiting either side of the mountain, and were notorious for their predatory habits.....VII/V for it lies beneath that part of the Alps which extends as far as the country of the Iapodes, a tribe which is at the same time both Celtic and Illyrian

Mount Ocra is in the Julian Alps ''For if one passes over Mount Ocra from Aquileia to Nauportus''
The Iapodes once dwelled on both sides and are a hybrid Keltic/Illyrian people; The Carni and Taurisci equally dwelled in this vicinity and the Carni and Norici were major worshippers of Belenus;
So its def. not false to assume that this entire region was a Keltic-Illyrian zone;
The Enetoi being on the Illyrian side;
 
Nobody1 said:
The Illyrians were an Indo-European branch;
If the Venetic is Illyrian - than the Illyrian branch is equally close to the Keltic and Italic branch;

J. Gvozdanovic - Venetic language [Heidelberg Uni. (2012)]
http://www.jolr.ru/files/%2883%29jlr2012-7%2833-46%29.pdf

And Herodotus specifically states that the Enetoi ''who live on the Adriatic'' are Illyrian - Ἰλλυριῶν Ἐνετοὺς;
And only Venetic inscriptions have occurred in Venetia and Raetia; But the Veneti were never recorded in Raetia - only Vindelic tribes (Vennones/Breuni/Genauni) who are like wise called Illyrian;

So it seems that they were all connected and Illyrian;



That applies to the Iapodes:

Strabo - IV/VI & VII/V
IV/VI Near to these regions dwell the Iapodes, close to them is [the Mount] Ocra. Formerly the Iapodes were numerous, inhabiting either side of the mountain, and were notorious for their predatory habits.....VII/V for it lies beneath that part of the Alps which extends as far as the country of the Iapodes, a tribe which is at the same time both Celtic and Illyrian

Mount Ocra is in the Julian Alps ''For if one passes over Mount Ocra from Aquileia to Nauportus''
The Iapodes once dwelled on both sides and are a hybrid Keltic/Illyrian people; The Carni and Taurisci equally dwelled in this vicinity and the Carni and Norici were major worshippers of Belenus;
So its def. not false to assume that this entire region was a Keltic-Illyrian zone;
The Enetoi being on the Illyrian side;
Click to expand...

I see all logic with what to say.

No one has Illyrian script so we can assume it could be also similar to liburbian and venetic. Messapic are fro Iapodes in inner modern croatia and have no association with Epirote.

interesting book below
http://books.google.com.au/books?id...Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=venetic illyrians&f=false

Well, to conclude and I will say it again, gallic tribes mutating with illyrian tribes creates a celtic people. Illyrian markers are also found in celtic areas. .................This is what i believe.
 
We already said that the Messapians where from Crete Sile.
 
@nobody1

I am currently thinking in respect to languages of the alps in ancient times, that venetic was originally a Euganei language. The veneti assumed the langauge when they arrived, similar to normans arriving in Normandy and accepting the local language.
If we look at the link below its shows that Venetic, East Raetic, west raetic, Camunic and Lepontic are all similar. How can an "invading" veneti who kicked the Eugenai from the coast of Veneto into the alps have taken with them a very similar language to the raetic, camuni etc?

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Venetic_Raetic_Camunic_Lepontic_alphabets.png


Also venetic was found in Innsbruck as per link below, there are 18 such finds on the road from the border of veneto to innsbruck
http://blogs.umass.edu/rwallace/2011/01/23/new-raetic-inscription/


So, in conclusion R-L2 seems to be ancient alpine people along with G-L497 and other defined markers.

Pity AuDna in Gedmatch never has and type of Alpine/central european numbers in any of their calculus

 
The iapyges is a cultural unit; Messapi, Peuceti, Dauni that derives from IAPYX, many sources claim they came from Crete tried invading Sicily but where repulsed to the sea before accidentally landing in southern Apulia and subsequently colonizing the region, they would have been high in J2a; boom Sile!
 
further to post#71

Historians state there was 150 venetic towns and 34 Euganei towns, clearly the invading veneti did not bring such large numbers of people , but must have absorbed many coastal Euganei tribes ( not known in names) to gain such a strong number of populace.
 
Dude we have a crisis on this forum I need help!
 
Sile said:
further to post#71

Historians state there was 150 venetic towns and 34 Euganei towns, clearly the invading veneti did not bring such large numbers of people , but must have absorbed many coastal Euganei tribes ( not known in names) to gain such a strong number of populace.
Click to expand...
It depends. If they came many centuries earlier than these historians wrote their stories, then they had enough time to build up population to settle 150 towns. What was the town definition for these historians, 200 people, 500 people, 1000 people? Probably what they called a town is just a big village by our standards. Regardless, we are not talking about millions of people, we are talking about population of few hundred thousand.
 
There's a suicidal person on this board please track her I.p. Address and report her so that she can receive some help
 
adamo said:
There's a suicidal person on this board please track her I.p. Address and report her so that she can receive some help
Click to expand...
I have a feeling that Sparkey already did that.
 
Ok thank you big guy : )
 
LeBrok said:
It depends. If they came many centuries earlier than these historians wrote their stories, then they had enough time to build up population to settle 150 towns. What was the town definition for these historians, 200 people, 500 people, 1000 people? Probably what they called a town is just a big village by our standards. Regardless, we are not talking about millions of people, we are talking about population of few hundred thousand.
Click to expand...

a possibility, but since venetic script is the same as raetic, camunic and lepontic script, then its logical that the veneti took the euganei script as their own as they clearly absorbed coastal euganei peoples...with this scenario, we can clearly see that the veneti where not great in numbers.
If they where great in numbers, they would have brought their own script, be it an antolian one or as recently stated a script from Turkmenistan into europe. But that is impossible since the scripts mentioned above are all very very similar

regards
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 76160 times.

Back
Top