PDA

View Full Version : Austria's Y-haplo-groups.



Templar
27-04-12, 16:47
I know that Austria is mostly R1b, but could someone please list specific clades of it, and whether or not they are of Celtic or Germanic origin. I am wondering if Austria is more Germanic or Celtic. The area was inhabited by Celts for thousands of years, and it was the location of the Hallstatt Celts (arguably one of the most highly-populated Celtic areas). But then after the Germanic invasions, modern-day Austrians obviously speak German.

I've also heard about how some parts of Austria have started wearing Kilts to signify pride in their supposed Celtic ancestors. They are even claiming that the Scottish Kilt's origins are from Austria.

Maciamo
27-04-12, 17:30
Austria is one of the most under-tested countries in Europe for haplogroups. But based on the little data available, it seems that most of the R1b belongs to the Germanic S21 (U106) variety. By the way, R1b is not dominant at all in Austria. It is barely 25% of the male lineages.

sparkey
27-04-12, 17:31
Austria is notoriously undersampled, so I don't feel like I have enough data offhand to separate Celtic vs. Germanic vs. other (Roman, Slavic, Hungarian, etc.) admixture. But I'd also be interested if anybody has more data than I do. Maybe someone can pull some figures out of something like YHRD?


I've also heard about how some parts of Austria have started wearing Kilts to signify pride in their supposed Celtic ancestors. They are even claiming that the Scottish Kilt's origins are from Austria.

The modern kilt is obviously a Scottish invention, dating to the 16th century at earliest. It was probably a sort of cross between a pleated Norse garment called a kjalta, and the older Celtic tradition of wearing a cloak and tunic, which often included designs.

I think Celtic reconstructionism is great, but the recent adoption of kilts as a "pan-Celtic" thing by the Irish, Welsh, Cornish, Bretons, Galicians, etc. is distinctly ahistoric.

Templar
27-04-12, 17:49
Link about the supposed Austrian "kilts":

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1069623/posts

Taranis
27-04-12, 18:03
I don't have much to add to what Maciamo and Sparkey said regarding the situation in Austria: we need more samples.


The modern kilt is obviously a Scottish invention, dating to the 16th century at earliest. It was probably a sort of cross between a pleated Norse garment called a kjalta, and the older Celtic tradition of wearing a cloak and tunic, which often included designs.

Amusingly though, what the ancient Celts did have tartan. The 1st century BC historian Diodorus of Sicily mentions that one of the most striking features about the Gauls were colorfully-patterned clothes. However, again, the convention of clan-specific tartan colors is a modern (ca. 17th/18th century) invention. Also, the ancient Celts wore pants (breeches) rather than kilts.

zanipolo
27-04-12, 22:06
i wrote this down a while ago from a tyrolese site. they in majority are G2a3b1a2 or was it Ray Banks G project ?

Maybe its easier to search austrian regions for dna numbers than the nation

MOESAN
28-04-12, 23:46
I know that Austria is mostly R1b, but could someone please list specific clades of it, and whether or not they are of Celtic or Germanic origin. I am wondering if Austria is more Germanic or Celtic. The area was inhabited by Celts for thousands of years, and it was the location of the Hallstatt Celts (arguably one of the most highly-populated Celtic areas). But then after the Germanic invasions, modern-day Austrians obviously speak German.

I've also heard about how some parts of Austria have started wearing Kilts to signify pride in their supposed Celtic ancestors. They are even claiming that the Scottish Kilt's origins are from Austria.

I don't know whom believe but H.HUBERT seamed considering the Eastern Hallstatt (Austria) group as a distinct one from the Western celtic one (S?. Germany Switzerland ...):one material temporal culture, but possibly two different ethnies... Who knows what modern spécialists say?

MOESAN
28-04-12, 23:49
I don't have much to add to what Maciamo and Sparkey said regarding the situation in Austria: we need more samples.



Amusingly though, what the ancient Celts did have tartan. The 1st century BC historian Diodorus of Sicily mentions that one of the most striking features about the Gauls were colorfully-patterned clothes. However, again, the convention of clan-specific tartan colors is a modern (ca. 17th/18th century) invention. Also, the ancient Celts wore pants (breeches) rather than kilts.

someones speake about an irish 'leine' that seams to be a sort of tunique ???

Sile
12-05-12, 11:36
have found 2 sites on the tyrolese - although some internal links need a fee to open.

http://tigen.tirolensis.info/wiki/South_Tyrol_(Ötzi’s_homeland)_historical_migrat ions (http://tigen.tirolensis.info/wiki/South_Tyrol_%28%C3%96tzi%E2%80%99s_homeland%29_his torical_migrations)

http://tigen.tirolensis.info/wiki/Tyrolean_DNA_admixture_and_genetic_structure



it has also other links to bavarians, bosnians etc etc
(http://tigen.tirolensis.info/wiki/Tyrolean_DNA_admixture_and_genetic_structure)

pipinnacanus
14-05-12, 02:18
The modern kilt is obviously a Scottish invention, dating to the 16th century at earliest. It was probably a sort of cross between a pleated Norse garment called a kjalta, and the older Celtic tradition of wearing a cloak and tunic, which often included designs.

I think you are vastly overstepping known facts to proclaim unsubstantiated opinions.

The Europid red-haired Tocharian burials in the western chinese desert are in multiple cases wearing the exact same tartan plaids woven in the same manner in the Talka Makan desert of China as is common later on in Scotland..
so I really dont see any basis for your claims at all. While particular clan-tartans or symbology may be later creations, the material and construction is quite old.

sparkey
14-05-12, 02:26
I think you are vastly overstepping known facts to proclaim unsubstantiated opinions.

The Europid red-haired Tocharian burials in the western chinese desert are in multiple cases wearing the exact same tartan plaids woven in the same manner in the Talka Makan desert of China as is common later on in Scotland..
so I really dont see any basis for your claims at all. While particular clan-tartans or symbology may be later creations, the material and construction is quite old.

Not the kilt, no. You're equating kilts with tartans, which, as Taranis has pointed out, aren't to be equated.

Templar
14-05-12, 11:28
By the way, R1b is not dominant at all in Austria. It is barely 25% of the male lineages.

That's surprising...

Templar
14-05-12, 11:32
I was looking at the European Y-DNA halpgroups chart, and according to its data it says that Austria has more R1a than R1b. Is most of this R1a Slavic or a remnant of older migrations (such as most R1a in Scandinavia).

ElHorsto
14-05-12, 12:48
By the way, R1b is not dominant at all in Austria. It is barely 25% of the male lineages.

That's surprising...

Yes, that's somewhat surprising. Still, in neighoring Bavaria we suddenly find approx. 50% R1b and 10% R1a. Historically, there is evidence that Bavarians are indeed mainly descendants of the celtic boii, while Austria did not exist as a nation until the middle ages. It was inhabited by various folks at that time (slavs, awars, raeti ...). Austria started only partially to exist as its western part became a colony of Bavaria first and later a colony of the Frankish empire. So the celtic history of Austria finished already long before Bavarian (re-)colonization. In addition it may be that during Frankish times not only Bavarian colonists settled in Austria, but also Germans. Maybe the increased I1 in eastern Austria is a trace of northern german colonists, given that the eastern part got colonized later mainly during frankish rule.

Templar
14-05-12, 13:04
Yes, that's somewhat surprising

I find it surprising, because the Celtic Hallstatt culture was centered in Austria; specifically in the center of Austria. Maybe the Roman conquest of the region led to severe depopulation (such as it did in Gaul), which allowed for easier replacement of population/haplogroups by future Germanic migrants.

Templar
14-05-12, 13:06
It is thought that Caesar killed and enslaved over half of Gaul's Celtic population during his military campaign there.

Taranis
14-05-12, 13:22
It is thought that Caesar killed and enslaved over half of Gaul's Celtic population during his military campaign there.

Yes, this is correct. However, does this automatically mean that half of the modern population of France is descended from immigrants during the Roman period? I personally find that rather doubftul, even though I must say it's hard to estimate how large the scope of migration inside the Roman Empire was.

Also, Austria isn't in Gaul. My opinion is that much of the modern makeup of Austria probably stems from the Migration Period to a significant degree, with both Germanic/German and Slavic components to it.

Regarding the connection between Bavaria and the Boii, I think that is rather indirect. The Celtic Boii were conquered in the 1st century BC by the Germanic Marcomanni, but the region continued to be refered as "Boii Home"* even afterwards. In my opinion, the most likely origin of the Bavarians ("Bajuvari" - "Men of Bohemia") is whatever remained of the Marcomanni at the eve of the Migration Period.


*found in:
Strabo's Geography, book 7, chapter 1.3
Tacitus "Germania", chapter 28

Templar
14-05-12, 14:08
Also, Austria isn't in Gaul. My opinion is that much of the modern makeup of Austria probably stems from the Migration Period to a significant degree, with both Germanic/German and Slavic components to it.

I agree, but what happened to the Celts?

Vallicanus
14-05-12, 15:21
It is thought that Caesar killed and enslaved over half of Gaul's Celtic population during his military campaign there.


There are no reliable figures for this.

Saying one million were enslaved and a million killed in Gaul is just ancient rhetoric for "big numbers".:rolleyes2:

Vallicanus
14-05-12, 15:22
It is thought that Caesar killed and enslaved over half of Gaul's Celtic population during his military campaign there.

The ancient Romans weren't Nazi bean-counters you know.

Templar
14-05-12, 17:28
There are no reliable figures for this.

Saying one million were enslaved and a million killed in Gaul is just ancient rhetoric for "big numbers".

Just quoting the information that I've read (from good sources) :P

MOESAN
14-05-12, 18:22
Just quoting the information that I've read (from good sources) :P

Julius Caesar as others liked magnifying the number or the opponents he vainquished - it would have been materially impossible to enslave so much people -

Taranis
14-05-12, 18:30
Julius Caesar as others liked magnifying the number or the opponents he vainquished - it would have been materially impossible to enslave so much people -

While there's no consensus about the number of casualties in the war, there can be little doubt that a sizable faction of the pre-war population perished in the war. One of the main reasons is that both sides essentially deployed scorched-Earth tactics. Pre-Roman Gaul had a significant fraction of the population of medieval France (as much as third to half), so in my opinion casualties in the order of a million may be realistic.

EDIT:

Back on the topic of Austria, the pre-Roman inhabitants (the Celtic Norici) were absorbed into the Roman Empire by the late 1st century BC, and the population presumably was eventually latinized (like the Romansh in Switzerland).

It's pretty clear that some major demographic shifts must have happened in Noricum during the wake of the Migration Period, otherwise the Austrians today would be speaking some form of Romance language, and not a Germanic one (again, compare with the situation in Switzerland).

zanipolo
15-05-12, 09:04
i think people are confusing the issue due to the fact that celtic is a lingiuistic terminology like slavic is. Its not a tribal/cultural terminology.
Why does everyone think the celtics are only R1b ?. Could they not also be R1a and I and J2 etc etc.

Lets take what we know of Austrian lands, - in the west Raeti , central and east was illyrian, venetic and gallic in the years of 600BC. what happened in around 550BC , the taurisci and the carni tribes ( gallic) invaded via switzerland , the taurisci settled in eastern austria ( noricum and where sometimes called Norici) and the carni went down the julian alps to split the venetic that where in italy and slovenia.
The carni became the friuli of Italy today ( a high % of R1a) and the Slovenians of the carnithia provinces ( again R1a) .

Who is to say that these Gallic Celtic tribes from Switzerland where not R1a. Who is not to say that the vindelici of southern germany where not R1a.

Romansch is a language associated with the Raeti, Ladin and Friuli - Was this also a gallic linguistic group?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friulan_language
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhaeto-Romance_languages

mihaitzateo
15-05-12, 10:38
Please take into account the migration of serbs to Austria,which happened few hundreds of years ago (around the year 1700).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Serb_Migrations
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Serb_Migrations)Think this influenced also the Y DNA from Austria.

MOESAN
16-05-12, 12:12
surely there is no absolute proof that Celts are only Y-R1b dominant - nevertheless, we can see that everywhere were Celts are supposed to have lived or ruled a long time over other people, Y-R1b is overwhelmingly dominent (but perhaps a lot of this Y-R1b are from the ruled people) and what is more evident (for me) is that Y-R1a is almost absolutly absent in "old celtic lands" - when it is to be found, it is in regions that knew other peoples intrusions: Germanics in Eastern France and Central Southeastern France, Vikings in Brittain, Greeks in more southern regions, Slavs in central Europe etc... and I remind what said HUBERT (even if this man was not MOSES) that Hallstatt culture area was not a pure celtic area - that some scarce Y-R1a was among previous Celts is possible, but just a little taste of it - Sure, everyone can keep with his believings without more elements to judge...

zanipolo
17-05-12, 09:29
read chapter 2 on the bronze age "austrian lands"

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=lL89AAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=noricum&hl=en&sa=X&ei=R6i0T6mJM8jdmAXy7oH9Dw&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=noricum&f=false

MOESAN
17-05-12, 18:10
read chapter 2 on the bronze age "austrian lands" http://books.google.com.au/books?id=lL89AAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=noricum&hl=en&sa=X&ei=R6i0T6mJM8jdmAXy7oH9Dw&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=noricum&f=false OK I red a part of this text - no surprise - what is your own conclusions ??? to go further on, I 'm reading "Les Indo-Europénes" by Bernard SERGENT - in this kind of compilation of other scholars he seams saying that against Henri HUBERT thoughts, all the Hallstatt Culture area would have been celtic culturally - posssible (it doesn 't focuse on the demic aspect) - apparently there should have been a true link between proto-Celts and proto-Italics - we know that Celts (coming from where previously? Eastern Europe?) re-expanded from Western-Central Europe (La Tène) to other lands: but are all the new celtic areas colonized by them very last entirely celtized from a demic aspect (genetical) aspect? in the same book he explains that the ancestors of Italic people and close people (apenniniques dont les Apuléans, kind of proto-itlaics) seam having had moved form East UNDER (southernly) the celtic area coming from Pannonia and surrounding regions, from an Eastern Europe origin too): these movements CAN (it 's not porved but...) have produced mixings and crossings with other populations of Neolithic stock (Danubian etc...) or North Balkan paleo-mesolithic stock: Austria is a crossroads - hard to prove more, easier to do bets (what I do as others here) - maybe Celts AND Italics, from a previous celtic-italic stock) could have beared a lot of Y-R1b-U152 in these regions, when other people send Y-J2, Y-E1b and diverse Y-I2a ...???

MOESAN
17-05-12, 18:11
SERGENT say about 2000 BC concerning the Italic peoples in Italy,

zanipolo
18-05-12, 09:16
OK I red a part of this text - no surprise - what is your own conclusions ??? to go further on, I 'm reading "Les Indo-Europénes" by Bernard SERGENT - in this kind of compilation of other scholars he seams saying that against Henri HUBERT thoughts, all the Hallstatt Culture area would have been celtic culturally - posssible (it doesn 't focuse on the demic aspect) - apparently there should have been a true link between proto-Celts and proto-Italics - we know that Celts (coming from where previously? Eastern Europe?) re-expanded from Western-Central Europe (La Tène) to other lands: but are all the new celtic areas colonized by them very last entirely celtized from a demic aspect (genetical) aspect? in the same book he explains that the ancestors of Italic people and close people (apenniniques dont les Apuléans, kind of proto-itlaics) seam having had moved form East UNDER (southernly) the celtic area coming from Pannonia and surrounding regions, from an Eastern Europe origin too): these movements CAN (it 's not porved but...) have produced mixings and crossings with other populations of Neolithic stock (Danubian etc...) or North Balkan paleo-mesolithic stock: Austria is a crossroads - hard to prove more, easier to do bets (what I do as others here) - maybe Celts AND Italics, from a previous celtic-italic stock) could have beared a lot of Y-R1b-U152 in these regions, when other people send Y-J2, Y-E1b and diverse Y-I2a ...???

First of all , this is the 2007 studies which includes other illyrians
http://www.anthroinsula.org/resources/Iliri-english text version.pdf

My conclusions are
1- There where no germanic people in Noricum until 600AD ...the Bavarians
2- The austrians first appeared in 998AD in noricum
3 - The Venetic where in between the raeti and illyrians in present area of Innsbruck with archelogical "road signs" down to the danube, there is even the same naming of the River of Innsbruck...Sill River on this stones and in the Veneto plains through Treviso to the Venetian lagoon its called Sile , but SIL in venetian.
4 - the majority of Noricum was infested with illyrians from 1000BC
5 - As per the book I linked on the other post, it states the Celtic homeland was the modern border of france and germany "alsace and east of there"

What we need to realise is that the Hallstatt culture came after into Noricum by the celts who where not germanic. With this I present a theory on U106.
Why would't U106 be Illyrian from Noricum that once these men where incorporated into the Roman armies, where based ( as history knows) in the netherlands building barges and boats to transport these Roman troops to English soil.

Then again- a mix of celtic and illyrian in Noricum could have "formed" U106 and also be sent to Netherlands

MOESAN
19-05-12, 13:22
First of all , this is the 2007 studies which includes other illyrians
http://www.anthroinsula.org/resources/Iliri-english text version.pdf

My conclusions are
1- There where no germanic people in Noricum until 600AD ...the Bavarians
2- The austrians first appeared in 998AD in noricum
3 - The Venetic where in between the raeti and illyrians in present area of Innsbruck with archelogical "road signs" down to the danube, there is even the same naming of the River of Innsbruck...Sill River on this stones and in the Veneto plains through Treviso to the Venetian lagoon its called Sile , but SIL in venetian.
4 - the majority of Noricum was infested with illyrians from 1000BC
5 - As per the book I linked on the other post, it states the Celtic homeland was the modern border of france and germany "alsace and east of there"

What we need to realise is that the Hallstatt culture came after into Noricum by the celts who where not germanic. With this I present a theory on U106.
Why would't U106 be Illyrian from Noricum that once these men where incorporated into the Roman armies, where based ( as history knows) in the netherlands building barges and boats to transport these Roman troops to English soil.

Then again- a mix of celtic and illyrian in Noricum could have "formed" U106 and also be sent to Netherlands

- As said by others, the austrian sample is very small and I shouldn't be astonished if the internal distribution of Y-R1b was changed (its SNPs) -
- History do'nt stop after Roman Empire so some Y-R1b-U106, perhaps the majority of it could have come or been reinforced by germanic invasions -
- I don't think that occupation troops of an Empire could very often take the strong side over previous autochtonous populations -
- Y-R1b U-106 (like Y-R1a) is very seldom in previous celtic countries where Germanics didn't poot their feet
- so, presently, I think that not only Y-R1b was the dominent HG among Celts or EARLY celtized people, but even his specific U106 SNP was very rare (not so rare among Belgae, maybe)
- the today austrian country is far being from celtic demic origin and it was the case yet at the time of the celtic eastwards expansion - and surely the different regions of Austria will show very different distributions of genes when more data will be gathered -
- I confess i' haven't too well understood your concept of a celtic-illyrian amalgame forming a "U106" population: I would signifiy that the two different folks have this SNP in common???

zanipolo
22-05-12, 11:39
- As said by others, the austrian sample is very small and I shouldn't be astonished if the internal distribution of Y-R1b was changed (its SNPs) -
- History do'nt stop after Roman Empire so some Y-R1b-U106, perhaps the majority of it could have come or been reinforced by germanic invasions -
- I don't think that occupation troops of an Empire could very often take the strong side over previous autochtonous populations -
- Y-R1b U-106 (like Y-R1a) is very seldom in previous celtic countries where Germanics didn't poot their feet
- so, presently, I think that not only Y-R1b was the dominent HG among Celts or EARLY celtized people, but even his specific U106 SNP was very rare (not so rare among Belgae, maybe)
- the today austrian country is far being from celtic demic origin and it was the case yet at the time of the celtic eastwards expansion - and surely the different regions of Austria will show very different distributions of genes when more data will be gathered -
- I confess i' haven't too well understood your concept of a celtic-illyrian amalgame forming a "U106" population: I would signifiy that the two different folks have this SNP in common???

What I am leading to is that since the noricum area had illyrians from around 1000BC and the celtic Halstatt period began no earlier than 800BC
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallstatt_culture
then it makes logical sense that the celtic merged with the illyrians in this noricum area and could have formed a new dna strain.

So, since we know the celts where R1b where the Noricum illyrians also R1b or ???

I do not think the celts wiped out completly all illyrians there because they where still noted in history by writers.

The next issue is that the Gallic Taurisic tribe march into and settled in Noricum around 500BC , basically the Halstatt and east of there. So were they a third different R1b people or ??
What happened to the celts ?

MOESAN
22-05-12, 22:50
Not the kilt, no. You're equating kilts with tartans, which, as Taranis has pointed out, aren't to be equated.

I come lately on this problem of clothes and kilts
for the modern kilt I don't know, but someones think that the 'bracae' and other breeches of the contiental Celts was a recent enough loan to Scythes (the larger ones was the ones of the Belgae) - the modern kilt is a 'relooked' form of a more ancient kind that was common to old scots and old irishmen
I confess I'm not a specialist for clothes

MOESAN
22-05-12, 23:12
What I am leading to is that since the noricum area had illyrians from around 1000BC and the celtic Halstatt period began no earlier than 800BC
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallstatt_culture
then it makes logical sense that the celtic merged with the illyrians in this noricum area and could have formed a new dna strain.

So, since we know the celts where R1b where the Noricum illyrians also R1b or ???

I do not think the celts wiped out completly all illyrians there because they where still noted in history by writers.

The next issue is that the Gallic Taurisic tribe march into and settled in Noricum around 500BC , basically the Halstatt and east of there. So were they a third different R1b people or ??
What happened to the celts ?

I don't know what to add?
I believed the first problem of this thread was the low % of R1b in Austria, a previous Hallstatt celtic region according to someones - the problem of the overwhelming dominance of U106 among R1b bearers is yet an other one- I tried to answer these questions - I would be glad having more austrian data... based on phenotypes (a partial approach) it seams that it would be some differences in distributions between Tyrol region (more neolithic and rhaetian) and by instance, the Salzburg region (more germanic: the ratio R1b-U106/-/I1 is not so different from the ratio among Flemings in whole Austria, for I know : I believe these HGs could be stronger in Salzburg region)- I don't see how the possible illyrian-celtic mixture can lighten the problem or only by saying that The weakened presence of Celts by other ethnies could explain the weak % of R1b ?...

MOESAN
30-05-12, 18:58
I don't know what to add?
I believed the first problem of this thread was the low % of R1b in Austria, a previous Hallstatt celtic region according to someones - the problem of the overwhelming dominance of U106 among R1b bearers is yet an other one- I tried to answer these questions - I would be glad having more austrian data... based on phenotypes (a partial approach) it seams that it would be some differences in distributions between Tyrol region (more neolithic and rhaetian) and by instance, the Salzburg region (more germanic: the ratio R1b-U106/-/I1 is not so different from the ratio among Flemings in whole Austria, for I know : I believe these HGs could be stronger in Salzburg region)- I don't see how the possible illyrian-celtic mixture can lighten the problem or only by saying that The weakened presence of Celts by other ethnies could explain the weak % of R1b ?...


I add to myself:
-I would very glad if the ethnic deep origin of the Austrians studied in these ridiculously small samples was told us (keep in mind thant between 20% and 30% of PRESENT DAY Austrian have SLAVIC (czech & yougoslav) AND HUNGARIAN FAMILY NAMES (males transmitted) -

MarTyro
05-06-12, 17:56
i wrote this down a while ago from a tyrolese site. they in majority are G2a3b1a2 or was it Ray Banks G project ?G2a is important in Tyrol, but not dominant AFAIK


Back on the topic of Austria, the pre-Roman inhabitants (the Celtic Norici) were absorbed into the Roman Empire by the late 1st century BC, and the population presumably was eventually latinized (like the Romansh in Switzerland).
It's pretty clear that some major demographic shifts must have happened in Noricum during the wake of the Migration Period, otherwise the Austrians today would be speaking some form of Romance language, and not a Germanic one (again, compare with the situation in Switzerland). The Norici are a key to understand DNA development in Austria. It is not clear if they descended mainly from western Celts.


Lets take what we know of Austrian lands, - in the west Raeti , central and east was illyrian, venetic and gallic in the years of 600BC. what happened in around 550BC , the taurisci and the carni tribes ( gallic) invaded via switzerland , the taurisci settled in eastern austria ( noricum and where sometimes called Norici) and the carni went down the julian alps to split the venetic that where in italy and slovenia.
The carni became the friuli of Italy today ( a high % of R1a) and the Slovenians of the carnithia provinces ( again R1a) .

Who is to say that these Gallic Celtic tribes from Switzerland where not R1a. Who is not to say that the vindelici of southern germany where not R1a.

Romansch is a language associated with the Raeti, Ladin and Friuli - Was this also a gallic linguistic group?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friulan_language
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhaeto-Romance_languages
It is not clear what kind of language Raeti (later romanized into Romansh, Ladin, Friuli) was. It had certainly (by writings) relations to the Etrusci. Taurisci and Carni maybe where only a warrior class and not the main genetic pool of later Raeti and/or Norici.


Please take into account the migration of serbs to Austria,which happened few hundreds of years ago (around the year 1700).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Serb_Migrations
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Serb_Migrations)Think this influenced also the Y DNA from Austria.
According to the Link the migrations went mainly to territories outside of german speaking areas (modern Austria). Mind that at the time the Habsburgian Austro-Hungarian Empire was much greater.


... apparently there should have been a true link between proto-Celts and proto-Italics - we know that Celts (coming from where previously? Eastern Europe?) re-expanded from Western-Central Europe (La Tène) to other lands: but are all the new celtic areas colonized by them very last entirely celtized from a demic aspect (genetical) aspect? in the same book he explains that the ancestors of Italic people and close people (apenniniques dont les Apuléans, kind of proto-itlaics) seam having had moved form East UNDER (southernly) the celtic area coming from Pannonia and surrounding regions, from an Eastern Europe origin too): these movements CAN (it 's not porved but...) have produced mixings and crossings with other populations of Neolithic stock (Danubian etc...) or North Balkan paleo-mesolithic stock: Austria is a crossroads - hard to prove more, easier to do bets (what I do as others here) - maybe Celts AND Italics, from a previous celtic-italic stock) could have beared a lot of Y-R1b-U152 in these regions, when other people send Y-J2, Y-E1b and diverse Y-I2a ...???
The old myths of Italics coming from east and moving along the southern Alps in to Italy is fascinating and maybe able to describe some of todays mixture in this area.


I add to myself:
-I would very glad if the ethnic deep origin of the Austrians studied in these ridiculously small samples was told us (keep in mind thant between 20% and 30% of PRESENT DAY Austrian have SLAVIC (czech & yougoslav) AND HUNGARIAN FAMILY NAMES (males transmitted) - Y-DNA exchange in the Habsburgian Empire (over 500 years) was certainly important and mixed mainly the lines in the main towns. Farmers and little villages should behave more stable.


There is a new big Y-DNA study (over 3.000 samples) in Tyrol: gerichtsmedizin.at/tyrolean_alps.html (http://gerichtsmedizin.at/tyrolean_alps.html) (in german: tirol-studie.at (http://tirol-studie.at/)). The sample collection is finished and the paper in elaboration.

MOESAN
06-06-12, 09:04
G2a is important in Tyrol, but not dominant AFAIK

The Norici are a key to understand DNA development in Austria. It is not clear if they descended mainly from western Celts.


It is not clear what kind of language Raeti (later romanized into Romansh, Ladin, Friuli) was. It had certainly (by writings) relations to the Etrusci. Taurisci and Carni maybe where only a warrior class and not the main genetic pool of later Raeti and/or Norici.


According to the Link the migrations went mainly to territories outside of german speaking areas (modern Austria). Mind that at the time the Habsburgian Austro-Hungarian Empire was much greater.


The old myths of Italics coming from east and moving along the southern Alps in to Italy is fascinating and maybe able to describe some of todays mixture in this area.

Y-DNA exchange in the Habsburgian Empire (over 500 years) was certainly important and mixed mainly the lines in the main towns. Farmers and little villages should behave more stable.


There is a new big Y-DNA study (over 3.000 samples) in Tyrol: gerichtsmedizin.at/tyrolean_alps.html (http://gerichtsmedizin.at/tyrolean_alps.html) (in german: tirol-studie.at (http://tirol-studie.at/)). The sample collection is finished and the paper in elaboration.


I agree with with your remarks as a whole
I 'm longing about the results of this huge study that could change a bit our understanding about Austria History -for Rhaeti, I'm no longer sure that the present day population of there previous homeland is occupied yet by only an ethny - in Highlands it can occur some compartmentation of different little ethnies in different valleys at historical times without too soon mixture, being the result that today this mixture has had the time to take place - phonetically, I find the romance dialects of this zone are close enough to gall-italic dialects and so show some "celtic" or "liguric" links, far from what I believe was the etrusc influence on latinlanguages (hard stops, no lenition, something not to far from the germanic or hungarian phonetic evolution, seen from far, it's true - here I need a linguist advice ... the most of Y-G there could be from a human stock without any link to Neolithic agriculture (Alani: Sarmats with a North-Caucasus demic influence?) - wait and see
thanks for your links

zanipolo
06-06-12, 10:07
I agree with with your remarks as a whole
I 'm longing about the results of this huge study that could change a bit our understanding about Austria History -for Rhaeti, I'm no longer sure that the present day population of there previous homeland is occupied yet by only an ethny - in Highlands it can occur some compartmentation of different little ethnies in different valleys at historical times without too soon mixture, being the result that today this mixture has had the time to take place - phonetically, I find the romance dialects of this zone are close enough to gall-italic dialects and so show some "celtic" or "liguric" links, far from what I believe was the etrusc influence on latinlanguages (hard stops, no lenition, something not to far from the germanic or hungarian phonetic evolution, seen from far, it's true - here I need a linguist advice ... the most of Y-G there could be from a human stock without any link to Neolithic agriculture (Alani: Sarmats with a North-Caucasus demic influence?) - wait and see
thanks for your links

I am also interested , especially the 8 to 9 % of T ydna - in tyrol and ladin lands (not Latin)