How much genetic impact did the Italic migration have on the local population?

[Pax Augusta]

I'm not a linguist, but I'm fairly sure a language can't simply change from one branch in to another depending on socio-political events.

Anyway, the first inscriptions of the venetic laguage should be from around the VI century BC, so well before the the led to the loss of independence of the venetic tribes, and I believe they are all generally classified under the italic branch.

Romans and Veneti themselves felt some kind of commonship, expecially when facing the cisalpine celtic tribes and the assimilation of the Venetic tribes under the Roman Republic was pretty peaceful (at least for the roman standards:embarassed.

The issue of Venetic as an Italic language is not resolved I think. When the genetic study on the Etruscans was presented in 2021, an Italian archaeologist said that the Ancient Veneti had some relationship with the Etruscans. I don't remember much else. He did not, however, talk about linguistics.

There is no mention of it here.

https://mnamon.sns.it/index.php?page=Lingua&id=42#presentazione

https://mnamon.sns.it/index.php?page=Scrittura&id=31&lang=it


Here, it does mention a possible relationship with Latin (p. 842) but it says that it's difficult to determine. Then Venetic not only shares some characteristics with Latin but also with Celtic. Which should come as no surprise, because at this point the chances that there is some truth in the Italo-Celtic theory are very high.


Wallace, Rex (2004). "Venetic". In Woodard, Roger D. (ed.). The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World’s Ancient Languages. University of Cambridge. pp. 840–856.

 

[torzio]

I'm not a linguist, but I'm fairly sure a language can't simply change from one branch in to another depending on socio-political events.

Anyway, the first inscriptions of the venetic laguage should be from around the VI century BC, so well before the the led to the loss of independence of the venetic tribes, and I believe they are all generally classified under the italic branch.

Romans and Veneti themselves felt some kind of commonship, expecially when facing the cisalpine celtic tribes and the assimilation of the Venetic tribes under the Roman Republic was pretty peaceful (at least for the roman standards:embarassed.

recent italian studies show




while the austrian/german show ..this for where venetic has been found

 

[torzio]

I do not recall venetic and early 700AD venetian having anything in common ............going by the venetian written letter

I think it is a dead language ..ie..venetic

 

[MOESAN]

There were just some Greek colonies in the south of Italy, this large amount of Iran_N ancestry in Central Italy couldn't be related to Greeks.

I support Francesco views here; the Iranlike ancestry at IA is so heterogenous, sometimes absent, that it could not reflect an homogenous ethny, only a situation of RECENT mixing with diverse strangers (Greeks among them). Not the signal of a well born ethnic group arrival.

 

[MOESAN]

@PaxAugusta
Hi! You never achieved your communication about Osco-Umbrians and Latins and their respective belonging to "Italic" tongues.
"Italic" is more based on languages similarities than on ethnic coherence. Italics in this perspective formed out of Italy, somewhere between S-Alps, Central Alps and Balkans, not Italy, I think. IMO they acquired some peculiarities around S-Austria/N-Croatia for both, but Osco-Umbrians seem to me having stayed longer in contact with Central-S-E Europe.
Veneti seem having stayed more in North; linguistically, the nowaday consensus would class them as "para-Italic", something rather archaic or better said less speclialized, closer to a previous stage of language, closer to Celtic, in fact to the Celto-Italic stage, as for the IE language of Rhaetia (not the Etruscan-like one) if we base us on the little we have at hand. I see no obstacle to think that Veneti of Poland and the Italy ones were linked at remote times.
Besides:
I remark that the Villanovians for distances in the post #1 are the farther ones everytime; it's true that the sample is so tiny for them and these supposed "Italics".

 

[MOESAN]

I do not recall venetic and early 700AD venetian having anything in common ............going by the venetian written letter
I think it is a dead language ..ie..venetic

True.
I never heard somebody guessing Venetic and modern Venitian are linked, directly at least.
Venitian dialect is the result of a dialectalization of Latin, influenced by substratum, I think, like all modern Romance languages if I don't mistake.

 

[MOESAN]

phoenotypically, Charles affirmed the Italy continental Chalco showed often what he called a "Balkano-Mediterrnean" type as opposed to its Mediterranean Chalco; whatever this term could encompass, this affirmation if true shows that some demic input from North or West Balkans occurred in Italy between Chalco and BA. Charles said it comes by land, so through North-East Italy. (At those times, the 'steppe' input was weak in Balkans, and the 'Iran'like input almost nul). At BA, nothing excludes that first Italic speaking tribes entered Italy. Surely a mix of LN Italy locals (Neolithic by origin) with descendants of a BB elite, if we consider as likely the Italo-Celtic-X-Y IE dialects were born among post-BB cultures.

 

[torzio]

@PaxAugusta
Hi! You never achieved your communication about Osco-Umbrians and Latins and their respective belonging to "Italic" tongues.
"Italic" is more based on languages similarities than on ethnic coherence. Italics in this perspective formed out of Italy, somewhere between S-Alps, Central Alps and Balkans, not Italy, I think. IMO they acquired some peculiarities around S-Austria/N-Croatia for both, but Osco-Umbrians seem to me having stayed longer in contact with Central-S-E Europe.
Veneti seem having stayed more in North; linguistically, the nowaday consensus would class them as "para-Italic", something rather archaic or better said less speclialized, closer to a previous stage of language, closer to Celtic, in fact to the Celto-Italic stage, as for the IE language of Rhaetia (not the Etruscan-like one) if we base us on the little we have at hand. I see no obstacle to think that Veneti of Poland and the Italy ones were linked at remote times.
Besides:
I remark that the Villanovians for distances in the post #1 are the farther ones everytime; it's true that the sample is so tiny for them and these supposed "Italics".

The Veneti are speakers of an Indo-European language settling in the Veneto. Syllabic punctuation became the key feature of Venetic script, even though alphabet variants from other parts of the Venetic realm deviate from the Este alphabet, most prominently in the writing of the dental stops. Prosdocimi argues that the younger phase 2 alphabets represent different solutions for reconciling the archaic Venetic alphabet with the younger Etruscan one.
The Venetic script features Omikron, which in the younger Este alphabet is situated not in its ancestral place, but at the very end of the row, as evidenced by the votive tablet Es 23, the only one bearing a complete row.
Finally, one of the distinctive features of the Venetic script is the frequent inversion of Lambda and Upsilon.

..................................................
Research on Raetic and North Italic writing in general, inscriptions tended to be assigned to different corpora based on a mixture of epigraphic and linguistic arguments. In 1971, Prosdocimi proposed that the term "Raetic" should by defined exclusively epigraphically, i.e. with regard to the alphabet in which an inscription is written: the elusive "Raetic" should denominate inscriptions that are neither written in the Este alphabet (Venetic), nor in the Lugano alphabet (Lepontic), nor in the Sondrio alphabet (Camunic)

 

[MOESAN]

Yes, it seems more than a language was spoken in Rhaetia, one of themmaybe not IE. The alphabet doesn' tmake the language.

 

[torzio]

Yes, it seems more than a language was spoken in Rhaetia, one of themmaybe not IE. The alphabet doesn' tmake the language.

as per what is known..............Rhaetic is only from circa 600BC ...............and it states in the bold i presented, Venetic is much older and etruscan is younger than venetic ...................there are no venetic in Italy older than 1250BC, the indigenous people being Euganei in Venetic lands..............Euganei spoke in a mix of Camunic and proto-venetic

 

[Pax Augusta]

@PaxAugusta
Hi! You never achieved your communication about Osco-Umbrians and Latins and their respective belonging to "Italic" tongues.
"Italic" is more based on languages similarities than on ethnic coherence. Italics in this perspective formed out of Italy, somewhere between S-Alps, Central Alps and Balkans, not Italy, I think. IMO they acquired some peculiarities around S-Austria/N-Croatia for both, but Osco-Umbrians seem to me having stayed longer in contact with Central-S-E Europe.
Veneti seem having stayed more in North; linguistically, the nowaday consensus would class them as "para-Italic", something rather archaic or better said less speclialized, closer to a previous stage of language, closer to Celtic, in fact to the Celto-Italic stage, as for the IE language of Rhaetia (not the Etruscan-like one) if we base us on the little we have at hand. I see no obstacle to think that Veneti of Poland and the Italy ones were linked at remote times.

Sorry, Moesan. These are complex issues, I will give you a better answer as soon as I can.

There is a strong archaeological difference between the whole of northern Italy, the Etruscans and Latins with the Osco-Umbrian language peoples. Throughout northern Italy, in Etruria and Latium vetus, incineration was dominant at some point between the end of the Bronze Age and the beginning of the Iron Age, whereas the Osco-Umbrian language peoples were characterised by inhumation, with only one exception, if I remember correctly, in the earliest phase of the culture of Terni (Umbrians).

I remark that the Villanovians for distances in the post #1 are the farther ones everytime; it's true that the sample is so tiny for them and these supposed "Italics".

The sample labelled as Villanovan is only one in the studies and comes from the 2019 Stanford study, and she is a woman from Veio, the southernmost area of Etruria, so much so that today Veio is practically in Rome. I do not think it can be representative for drawing definitive conclusions.

There is also a proto-Villanovan sample but it has nothing to do with the Etruscans, it comes from Abruzzo on the border with Marche.