New population isolates identified in the eastern Italian Alps

@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

the link below shows the Alphabet types (scritps) not the languages;
all those Alphabets stem from the Cumaean Greek (via the Etruscans);

Lepontic and Venetic are Indo-European languages;
Camunic is not classified and Raetic is non-Indo-European with features to Tyrsenian (Etruscan/Lemnian);

The non-Indo-European part is prob the Neolithic remnant pop.; As in Strabo IV/VI;
Camunic might be Ligurian/Euganean might be Raetic;
Lepontic is classified as P-Keltic might also be however P-Italic (Umbrian/archaic) since this language was spoken by Umbrians to begin with;
Venetic is classified as an isolate-Indo-European language (close to Keltic/Italic) - because Illyrian itself is not substantially classified and attested;
But the Veneti (Enetoi) are classified as Illyrians in classical History;

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

Yes;
Venetic has been found in Alpine areas; But the Veneti were never recorded there;
Meaning - the tribes that are recorded there must have spoken an identical language (akin to Venetic);
Ergo - those tribes [Illyrians/(Vindelici)] and the Veneti must be connected and of the same Indo-European branch i.e. Illyrian (or an isolated same branch);

Thats what your talking about; Venetic inscription [vhilone.i. /filo:))nej/] from Demlfeld, Tyrol;
Demlfeld and the entire Ampass area correspond to the Breuni (Βρεῦνοι) and Genauni (Γεναῦνοι) tribal areas;
And both the Breuni and Genauni are recorded in classical History as Illyrians just like the Veneti (Enetoi);
http://www.archaeotirol.at/
Foto%2025.jpg
 
the link below shows the Alphabet types (scritps) not the languages;
all those Alphabets stem from the Cumaean Greek (via the Etruscans);

Lepontic and Venetic are Indo-European languages;
Camunic is not classified and Raetic is non-Indo-European with features to Tyrsenian (Etruscan/Lemnian);

The non-Indo-European part is prob the Neolithic remnant pop.; As in Strabo IV/VI;
Camunic might be Ligurian/Euganean might be Raetic;
Lepontic is classified as P-Keltic might also be however P-Italic (Umbrian/archaic) since this language was spoken by Umbrians to begin with;
Venetic is classified as an isolate-Indo-European language (close to Keltic/Italic) - because Illyrian itself is not substantially classified and attested;
But the Veneti (Enetoi) are classified as Illyrians in classical History;



Yes;
Venetic has been found in Alpine areas; But the Veneti were never recorded there;
Meaning - the tribes that are recorded there must have spoken an identical language (akin to Venetic);
Ergo - those tribes [Illyrians/(Vindelici)] and the Veneti must be connected and of the same Indo-European branch i.e. Illyrian (or an isolated same branch);

Thats what your talking about; Venetic inscription [vhilone.i. /filo:))nej/] from Demlfeld, Tyrol;
Demlfeld and the entire Ampass area correspond to the Breuni (Βρεῦνοι) and Genauni (Γεναῦνοι) tribal areas;
And both the Breuni and Genauni are recorded in classical History as Illyrians just like the Veneti (Enetoi);
http://www.archaeotirol.at/
Foto%2025.jpg

thanks for info.............i had an idea that was the case.

still the language was not brought to NE-Italy by migrating venetic people......it must be the original language of the euganei. I also heard venetic was Q-celtic and not P-celtic. i will seek the old source for you.

On Breuni and Genauni.......the term illyrian in the alps must have meant a similar tribe to what was in modern slovenia and eastern austrian..........there is a Breuni tribe in southern Pannonia....IIRC it was classified as Illyrian-dacian.
 
thanks for info.............i had an idea that was the case.

still the language was not brought to NE-Italy by migrating venetic people......it must be the original language of the euganei. I also heard venetic was Q-celtic and not P-celtic. i will seek the old source for you.

On Breuni and Genauni.......the term illyrian in the alps must have meant a similar tribe to what was in modern slovenia and eastern austrian..........there is a Breuni tribe in southern Pannonia....IIRC it was classified as Illyrian-dacian.

I think you mean the Breuci (Βρευκοῖ);
Strabo counts them to the Pannonii tribes but doesnt specify who exactly the Pannonii are;
But the Pannonii are situated between the Taurisci and Scordisci and prob. something just like them;
The Taurisci are classified as Keltic and the Norici being a branch of the Taurisci;
In VII/III Strabo clearly mentions the Scordisci as a Keltic tribe as well [along with the Boii and Taursici(Norici)] however in VII/V Strabo informs us:

"They alleged that the country was theirs, although it was separated from theirs by the River Parisus, which flows from the mountains to the Ister near the country of the Scordisci who are called Galatae, for these too lived intermingled with the Illyrian and the Thracian tribes"

So maybe (just maybe) the Pannonii are of an equal Indo-Euuropean Keltic/Illyrian/Thracian combo - as are the Scordisci just east of them or they are of an Indo-European Keltic/Illyrian combo as are the Iapodes west of them;
 
I think you mean the Breuci (Βρευκοῖ);
Strabo counts them to the Pannonii tribes but doesnt specify who exactly the Pannonii are;
But the Pannonii are situated between the Taurisci and Scordisci and prob. something just like them;
The Taurisci are classified as Keltic and the Norici being a branch of the Taurisci;
In VII/III Strabo clearly mentions the Scordisci as a Keltic tribe as well [along with the Boii and Taursici(Norici)] however in VII/V Strabo informs us:

"They alleged that the country was theirs, although it was separated from theirs by the River Parisus, which flows from the mountains to the Ister near the country of the Scordisci who are called Galatae, for these too lived intermingled with the Illyrian and the Thracian tribes"

So maybe (just maybe) the Pannonii are of an equal Indo-Euuropean Keltic/Illyrian/Thracian combo - as are the Scordisci just east of them or they are of an Indo-European Keltic/Illyrian combo as are the Iapodes west of them;

my sources say, taurisci are a gallic tribe from modern switzerland with one branch going south and being called taurini ( turin) and the other going to noricum and mixing with the nori tribe ( illyrian ) and being renamed norici ( creators of noric steel ). The nori illyrians where north of the most eastern venetic tribe called the catali.
In regards to scordisci, they are migrating celtic and illyrian mix who moved to modern serbia and absorbed part of the thracian triballi or bessi tribe. some say these scordisci where remnants of the failed celtic invasion of Thessaly in Greece. IIRC there might be a mount called something similar to scordi or ?
The term galatae is strange in Roman text, they say Keltic gauls for southern french areas and galatae kelts for northern french areas.........but it is confusing

The pannonians are originally one of the "super Illyrian" tribe and later mixing with dacians and celts. Other "super" tribes being liburnians, dalmatians and others i cannot recall.
 
the classification and "apparentment" of ancient tribes of ancient classical "historians" were not always soundly based -
lepontic was definitely celtic (by the way things are not simple: certain celtic speaking population of N-Italy adopted some etruscan clothes and rites at La Tène period) so...- as said in other threads, the term "illyrian" is to be taken with caution - again, the affiliation of tribes by ancients are unreliable very often
 
the classification and "apparentment" of ancient tribes of ancient classical "historians" were not always soundly based -
lepontic was definitely celtic (by the way things are not simple: certain celtic speaking population of N-Italy adopted some etruscan clothes and rites at La Tène period) so...- as said in other threads, the term "illyrian" is to be taken with caution - again, the affiliation of tribes by ancients are unreliable very often

I agree with Nobody, I find the alpine tribes all very similar regardless on what they are called. IIRC a monument with all tribes the Romans conquered in the alps is still standing.
Celts had gallic and Illyrian blood as well as Raeti and vindelici
 
@marciano

Are you going to use the ydna and mtdna numbers found in the 2 links in your maps and Italian data ?
 

Sorry, I missed this before...

Additional data is always good, but, of course, all these old studies should be reinterpreted in light of new papers like Lazaridis et al. Even just based on the state of the science at the time, some of the conclusions, like the one that some of these communities show basic continuity from the Mesolithic are based on assumptions which have not yet been proven, and were in fact disputed even at the time, such as the one that H1 and H3 are "Mesolithic" in central Europe, not to mention that all the yDNA "R" in the area could not be considered
Mesolithic" given that, as the authors concede, the attribution of yDNA "R" to the Mesolithic of Central Europe was "controversial". As is now abundantly clear, of course, neither complete Mesolithic nor Neolithic continuity can be found anywhere in modern Europe.

Just generally, all of these studies of highly inbred communities seem to merely repeat things that are already pretty well established, although of course, there's always value in tracking for public health reasons the recessive genetic disease which shows up in many of them.

As many papers have already shown, isolated, low growth populations show higher FST distances to other groups compared to high growth, expanding populations. Even so, as the authors themselves state, "In fact, the absolute value is very low (~1%) if one considers that overall, the European population is genetically homogeneous. The genetic variation in all populations, comprising those from Trentino, is mostly present within the same (>90%) rather than different populations."

Also, the paper fails to find an explanation for the genetic variation in either the cultural affiliation or the languages of the various villages. As was also shown in some relatively recent papers about Iceland, modern populations, because of the operations of drift, aren't even particularly close to the people who can with some certainty be identified as the original founders of the community, as was shown in the case of the Cimbri.

All of which implies to me that other than for historians, the affiliations attributed by ancient writers to these groups is of even less usefulness in terms of a genetic analysis of the modern day populations inhabiting the area.

I guess in academia as in everything else, what goes around, comes around. After all this insistence that genetic variation is strictly about admixture, and all these attempts to tie genetic diversity to language affiliation, we're drifting back to accepting the large role that "drift", and, no doubt, selection, plays in genetic diversity. (Pun intended, :)).
 
As far as i know;
The only think Lazaridis et al. debunked is that North_Euro Componant has nothing to do with Nordic (Caucasoid) Anthropological features;

Loshbour is [K=20] 100% North_Euro and is described in the study to be just as dark if not darker than Stuttgart who is [K=20] overwhelmingly South_Euro; Loshbour = Dark/Black hair, Darker skin pigmentation, prob. light-eyes; Not a Nordic description; And if thats how 100% North_Euro looks like than that says it all;

All of which implies to me that other than for historians, the affiliations attributed by ancient writers to these groups is of even less usefulness in terms of a genetic analysis of the modern day populations inhabiting the area.

what exactly are you talking about here?
what Historians? what affiliations? which Historian did Lazaridis et al discredit here given that no Alpine pop. was even part of the study;

this constant effort of discrediting ancient scholars by simply claiming false and abstract assertions is nothing but pathetic;
mention a concrete case or let it be;
 
Okay, let's take it one step at a time...perhaps I wasn't sufficiently clear.

This is what the authors of the paper in question conclude..."Overall, these results favor the hypothesis of genetic continuity between modern and pre-neolithic local populations. This suggests that the introduction of agricultural practices in the region (Neolithization) could have occurred through a process of acculturation of local Mesolithic populations, rather than by the arrival of Neolithic groups, as suggested by the archaeological data in loco (Lanzinger et al., 2000).

Unless things change pretty drastically with the sequencing of more ancient "European" hunter gatherers, I think that it's now pretty clear, post Lazaridis et al, that agriculture in Europe was *not* mainly spread through a process of acculturation of local Mesolithic populations, but through the arrival of farmers from, probably, Anatolia, or at least the Aegean area. These isolated mountain communities are highly unlikely to be remnants of western hunter gatherers. The figures from Laziridis et al for central Europe, for example, seem to hover around 33%. Also, whatever the various layers of admixture involved, the median across Europe for the EEF component is over 55% according to one analysis I've seen, (close to 50% in Germany) and I don't even know if that figure included weighting of the data in light of the population of the various European regional areas. Then you have to factor in the percentages of ANE, which I think look pretty clearly to have arrived in western Europe much later, and from the east.

Now, the authors didn't have access to autosomal data, or these sophisticated analytical models. They were basing their conclusions, which can now be seen to be incorrect, on assumptions about mtDNA and yDNA which also, in my opinion, are incorrect. It seems to me that after Mal'ta and the Lazaridis paper, the odds are in favor of the fact that all that R1b1b1 in the Alps arrived post Neolithic. Nor is it in any way proven that H1 and H3 mtDNA are mesolithic in central Europe again, in my opinion. Furthermore, even if results came in tomorrow that R1b is mesolithic in central Europe, and so are mtDNA H1 and H3, it still wouldn't change the fact that autosomally these people are only about one third WHG. All it would show, once again, is the loose correlation between uniparental markers and autosomal DNA.

Therefore, it's my opinion that while the data from this paper is valuable, the conclusions as to this particular issue are incorrect. You're free, of course, to hold any opinion you wish on the matter. (I think many of their other conclusions, regarding the importance of drift, for example, and other issues upon which I elaborated up thread, are indeed valuable.)

I'm a little puzzled why you introduced the topic of pigmentation. I certainly didn't see the analysis of the pigmentation snps borne by the WHG as the most important take-away from the paper, but to each their own. I also wasn't particularly surprised, because I've never felt that we could transfer modern local phenotypes back thirty or even ten thousand years. Two thousand years, in some places, maybe, but not ten thousand years. Plus, the studies of pigmentation alleles have consistently proposed a relatively "modern" sweep for them, with the various estimates not coming in much before ten thousand years ago for some of them.

Finally, while you're certainly entitled to feel that some ancient author with the most limited knowledge of geography, only oral history and legend as a source, and no conception of the insights to be gained from genetics, is some sort of guide to the *genetic* composition of some modern populations in the Alps, you are not entitled to prohibit anyone else from expressing a contrary view. Nor does it do your theories any good when you engage in personal attacks and name calling. That's usually a sign of a weak argument in my opinion. What you might want to do instead is re-read the latest link to the paper in question, focusing particularly on the fact that the genetic variation does not correlate very well with either language affiliation or place of origin.
 
Okay, let's take it one step at a time...perhaps I wasn't sufficiently clear.

This is what the authors of the paper in question conclude..."Overall, these results favor the hypothesis of genetic continuity between modern and pre-neolithic local populations. This suggests that the introduction of agricultural practices in the region (Neolithization) could have occurred through a process of acculturation of local Mesolithic populations, rather than by the arrival of Neolithic groups, as suggested by the archaeological data in loco (Lanzinger et al., 2000).

Unless things change pretty drastically with the sequencing of more ancient "European" hunter gatherers, I think that it's now pretty clear, post Lazaridis et al, that agriculture in Europe was *not* mainly spread through a process of acculturation of local Mesolithic populations, but through the arrival of farmers from, probably, Anatolia, or at least the Aegean area. These isolated mountain communities are highly unlikely to be remnants of western hunter gatherers. The figures from Laziridis et al for central Europe, for example, seem to hover around 33%. Also, whatever the various layers of admixture involved, the median across Europe for the EEF component is over 55% according to one analysis I've seen, (close to 50% in Germany) and I don't even know if that figure included weighting of the data in light of the population of the various European regional areas. Then you have to factor in the percentages of ANE, which I think look pretty clearly to have arrived in western Europe much later, and from the east.

Now, the authors didn't have access to autosomal data, or these sophisticated analytical models. They were basing their conclusions, which can now be seen to be incorrect, on assumptions about mtDNA and yDNA which also, in my opinion, are incorrect. It seems to me that after Mal'ta and the Lazaridis paper, the odds are in favor of the fact that all that R1b1b1 in the Alps arrived post Neolithic. Nor is it in any way proven that H1 and H3 mtDNA are mesolithic in central Europe again, in my opinion. Furthermore, even if results came in tomorrow that R1b is mesolithic in central Europe, and so are mtDNA H1 and H3, it still wouldn't change the fact that autosomally these people are only about one third WHG. All it would show, once again, is the loose correlation between uniparental markers and autosomal DNA.

Therefore, it's my opinion that while the data from this paper is valuable, the conclusions as to this particular issue are incorrect. You're free, of course, to hold any opinion you wish on the matter. (I think many of their other conclusions, regarding the importance of drift, for example, and other issues upon which I elaborated up thread, are indeed valuable.)

I'm a little puzzled why you introduced the topic of pigmentation. I certainly didn't see the analysis of the pigmentation snps borne by the WHG as the most important take-away from the paper, but to each their own. I also wasn't particularly surprised, because I've never felt that we could transfer modern local phenotypes back thirty or even ten thousand years. Two thousand years, in some places, maybe, but not ten thousand years. Plus, the studies of pigmentation alleles have consistently proposed a relatively "modern" sweep for them, with the various estimates not coming in much before ten thousand years ago for some of them.

Finally, while you're certainly entitled to feel that some ancient author with the most limited knowledge of geography, only oral history and legend as a source, and no conception of the insights to be gained from genetics, is some sort of guide to the *genetic* composition of some modern populations in the Alps, you are not entitled to prohibit anyone else from expressing a contrary view. Nor does it do your theories any good when you engage in personal attacks and name calling. That's usually a sign of a weak argument in my opinion. What you might want to do instead is re-read the latest link to the paper in question, focusing particularly on the fact that the genetic variation does not correlate very well with either language affiliation or place of origin.

but to me you seemed to be responding to my link #88.
Is this your summary of this link?
 
The studies i was talking to (with Sile) were Esko et al 2012/Capocasa et al 2013/Coia et al 2013;
And neither is Lanzinger et al 2000 an Ancient Scholar;

And ever since Skoglund et al 2012 and Gök4 it is clear that the Neolithic spread of Farming occurred with a Physical-Migration and not an idea (into previous existing pops); That goes without saying and in that regard we are absolutely on the same page;

Lazaridis et al 2013 sequenced (and used) 11 corpses from the Mesolithic/Neolithic (Hunters and Farmers) and created a 'three way mixture model' (ANE/EEF/WHG) based on those corpses and imposed this three way mixture model on modern-day European pops.; But no Alpine pop. was part of it:

But to the actual point; You claimed that Ancient Scholars are getting debunked by recent studies; And im not prohibiting you from anything - on the contrary i am encouraging you to finally post some proper sources to that;

Im still really hopeful that in the next post you will post a passage from Classical-History claiming (affiliations) this and that about Alpine pops and how Lazaridis et al debunked it; Giving that Lazaridis is not about Indo-Europeans or any Bronze-age pop and has no info on modern Alpine pops to begin with;

PS: How false were the Ancient Scholars in claiming that the Sardinians are isolated or in describing waves of migrations and inter-mixtures? Just a few examples for starters;
 
I find it interesting that the villages with linguistic minorities cluster clearly more north compared to Italian ones, kinda surprising.
 
Looking back at this paper the PCA results are really quite surprising. They seem to place the general population of Resia, which is mostly a Friulian influenced Slavic speaking community with Basque speakers from France, but the isolated populations are even more divergent than that, clustering far adrift from all others. Interestingly, none of them plot midway between Northern Italians/Friulian Speakers and Slovenes such as what one would expect. In contrast the German speaking populations seem to cluster tightly with other Friulian speakers/N. Italians which suggests significant population turnover despite retaining a language isolate. The Italian speaking population of San Martino del Carso which lies in the province of Gorizia in contrast seems intermediate between modern Slovenians and Northern Italians, thus probably outlining a multiethnic character of near equal parts Italian and Slovenian.

It's too bad we don't have G25 coordinates for these populations as they're interesting to study. The general impression I get is that most of these minority populations have been genetically Italianized to a substantial degree and don't really cluster with their countries of origin. On that note there is the exception of Resia which doesn't cluster with any local populations even beyond the Eastern Italian border. Any ideas as to why Resians cluster with French Basques here?

28.01.2024_10.25.45_REC.png
 
Last edited:
Any ideas as to why Resians cluster with French Basques here?

Vitruvius, I don't know and ofc it's an interesting question. I'm not an expert so I might get it totally wrong, but could it be that PCA maps (as far as I've read) should be viewed in 3 dimensions for their results to be fully appreciated and that closeness, just like the impression of some populations looking more northern/southern than they actually are, is just an illusion of displaying the results in 2D?
 
Vitruvius, I don't know and ofc it's an interesting question. I'm not an expert so I might get it totally wrong, but could it be that PCA maps (as far as I've read) should be viewed in 3 dimensions for their results to be fully appreciated and that closeness, just like the impression of some populations looking more northern/southern than they actually are, is just an illusion of displaying the results in 2D?

You would think if that were the case, then the authors would mention this and provide several viewpoints to better visualize the PCA. I question how much population inbreeding has to do with the odd results, including those for the other "isolated" populations which seem to cluster more erratically for all sample groups. After looking at this again, one thing I noticed is that all the isolated groups plot towards the Resian "cline" relative to their general populations.
 

This thread has been viewed 75660 times.

Back
Top