Ancestry and kinship in a Late Antiquity-Early Middle Ages cemetery in the EasternItalian Alps

I think it is no coincidence that even the few E-V13 samples from closer to the Adriatic come from areas which were under Eastern Urnfield into Hallstatt-Basarabi influence, and especially those related to the Liburnians.

In the Venetic area we even get burials with items very rare to completely absent in the rest of Italia at that time, of which some might point to extensive contacts to the Thraco-Cimmerian and Scythian groups from the Pannonian steppe.

But like always, it is actual Venetic samples we need, which are hard to get because of the cremation rite.
 
Will the Venetic men where cremated, the women and children where not and they where found with amber stones in the graves from the Baltic area, supplied by Illyrian tribes in Eastern Austria
I think it is no coincidence that even the few E-V13 samples from closer to the Adriatic come from areas which were under Eastern Urnfield into Hallstatt-Basarabi influence, and especially those related to the Liburnians.

In the Venetic area we even get burials with items very rare to completely absent in the rest of Italia at that time, of which some might point to extensive contacts to the Thraco-Cimmerian and Scythian groups from the Pannonian steppe.

But like always, it is actual Venetic samples we need, which are hard to get because of the cremation rite.
 
Will the Venetic men where cremated, the women and children where not and they where found with amber stones in the graves from the Baltic area, supplied by Illyrian tribes in Eastern Austria
Most of Eastern Austria seems to have been not Illyrian though, with the exception of the Unterkrainische Gruppe possibly. Frög and Kalenderberg seem to have been different people, whatever they were, probably closer related to the Veneti than to the Illyrians even.
 
Most of Eastern Austria seems to have been not Illyrian though, with the exception of the Unterkrainische Gruppe possibly. Frög and Kalenderberg seem to have been different people, whatever they were, probably closer related to the Veneti than to the Illyrians even.
we already have archeological proof ( from Unisco studies ) that the Port of Vienna was Illyrian (late bronze-age )...........while the later city of Vienna was purely celtic (iron-age) in origin ( Halstatt culture )
I have already presented this paper in the past twice as well as Ms Perego papers on late bronze-age and early iron-age Veneto lands
 
In my opinion only the Unterkrainische Gruppe (Dolenjsko, Slovenia) from the Eastern Hallstatt sphere shows clearly Illyrian affinities:

Harta-e-Hallstattit-lindor.png


Frög and Kalenderberg are already quite different in nearly all respects.

In the past some of these groups were called Illyrian in a very broad sense of being Old Indoeuropeans, practically without distinction. But if we look at the current archaeologcial and genetic pattern, there is a pretty sharp borderline between the J-L283 dominated Illyrians with their clan tumuli and inhumation burials, vs. the cremated elite in a socially stratified community in the Eastern Hallstatt sphere and under Basarabi influence.

Unterkrainische group sticks out in this respects, but was already largely R-L2 in the sample, with one J-L283 outlier. Frög and Kalenderberg are even further removed from the Adratic Illyrians.
 
So now we are at "Panillirismo". Interesting how theories from the past return cyclically in the forums. They were not completely uninhabited places before the end of the Bronze Age.

The Picenes do indeed have a very well known recent Balkan influence in addition to local ones.

"The basis of its formation has been recognized to be the concurrence of different cultures, the Apennine, Proto-Villanovan and Trans-Adriatic peoples."




The problem is that one continues to make the equivalence of late Bronze Age material cultures with Iron Age ethnic groups or even modern ones and consider Iron Age populations as monolithic blocks and as having appeared biologically only at the beginning of their earliest archaeological chronological phase (which for Italy usually coincides with the transition phase between the Bronze Age and the Iron Age). Although it is quite plausible that they had some E-V13 and even some J2b-L283, after all they bordered us with the northern Balkans, until we have the analysis we cannot make any conclusions.

The ancient Venetic language is considered Indo-European, but its affiliation to a specific family is still a matter of debate, although in general, even on the basis of conferences recently held in Italy at the university, there is a tendency to recognize a link between ancient Venetic and the Latin-Faliscan languages. Talking to an archaeologist recently, he made me realize how certain "models" are nonsense; it is also possible that in the ethnogenesis of the Veneti, but this is also true for other populations of pre-Roman Italy, there were several different layers of Indo-European-speaking populations, with different dates, which obviously merged gradually together, and with one Indo-European language then prevailing over the others and being used centuries later when the alphabet was introduced. The fact that it is possible does not imply that it actually happened; it means that it cannot be ruled out.
I wouldn't use the term "Panillirismo" to describe what I'm trying to say and I agree that none of these places were ever completely uninhabited in the time frames we refer to. I am not saying the Veneti were synonymous with the Illyrians as I do not believe their culture, sense of identiy, and language were homogeneous or interchangeable with the Illyrian tribes during the IA. I'm simply stating that I think the Veneti and Northern Illyrians share a similar genetic origin in the bronze age, whose genetic similarity was maintained into the iron the age and that's it. Similarly we don't classify France, England and Germany as "PanCeltic" even though they similarly show a large sum of genetic overlap originating from bronze age movements. Nor do we refer to southern Italians as "Greeks" despite the fact that many appear to show strong genetic influence from the Aegean and today overlap with greek islanders. Genetics are only one component amongst many as far as a tribal concept of identity goes.

If you think the Veneti will look significantly different from the northern adriatic profile of the IA/BA I'm more than willing to hear you out. I'd just be highly surprised if that were the case based on what we currently know. I agree that ancient Venetic is much more likely to be an Italic substrate of language than any other and while I wouldn't rule out influences from Illyria entirely, I'd be skeptical of any claims of Venetic being closer to Illyrian languages than those of Italic. To me the big question mark is more so trying to understand what event seperated the Veneti from the Etruscans on a linguistic and ethnic comparison to other Italians. This is curious to me as the Rhaetics who appear much more geographically distant are historically claimed by writers such as Pliny and Livy to be a northern Etruscan ethnic group in race and language, where as the Veneti are understood to represent a different type of Italic people. What's more is that Polybius and Livy both claim that all of northern Italy outside of Venetic lands were originally etruscan descended before the Gallic invasions. This again singles out the Veneti as somewhat of an oddball Italic tribe amongst the rest, which did not have an etruscan affiliated origin.
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't use the term "Panillirisimo" to describe what I'm trying to say and I agree that none of these places were ever completely uninhabited in the time frames we refer to. I am not saying the Veneti were synonymous with the Illyrians as I do not believe their culture, sense of identiy, and language were homogeneous or interchangeable with the Illyrian tribes during the IA. I'm simply stating that I think the Veneti and Northern Illyrians share a similar genetic origin in the bronze age, whose genetic similarity was maintained into the iron the age and that's it. Similarly we don't classify France, England and Germany as "PanCeltic" even though they similarly show a large sum of genetic overlap originating from bronze age movements. Nor do we refer to southern Italians as "Greeks" despite the fact that many appear to show strong genetic influence from the Aegean and today overlap with greek islanders. Genetics are only one component amongst many as far as a tribal concept of identity goes.

I cannot follow your reasoning. What does it mean that ancient Veneti and northern Illyrians share a similar genetic origin in the Bronze Age? A similar ratio of ancestral components? Or same ancestors in the Bronze Age?

The idea of an Illyrian origin of the Veneti is as old as time, and today is considered an outdated theory.

The idea that Northern Balkan BA may have a genetic relationship with northern Italy came back into vogue a few years ago in forums because they seem to have a similar genetic profile based on autosomal DNA, but this is based on samples from modern northern Italy, not on Iron Age samples. Wish we had Iron Age samples from northern Italy. Do the few Bronze Age samples from northern Italy show any connection with the prehistory of the Illyrian world?

As Riverman said, the Iron Age Illyrians are overwhelmingly dominated by some clades of J2b-L283. We will be able to say that the Veneti will have a similar genetic origin to the Illyrians the moment we have their analyses showing the Veneti dominated by the same clades of J2b-L283, as well as being very very similar to the Illyrians. Then there is the problem of language. So did the Illyrians speak a language similar to Venetic and Venetic is a Paleo-Balkan language? Or Illyrian is an Italic language?


If you think the Veneti will look significantly different from the northern adriatic profile of the IA/BA I'm more than willing to hear you out. I'd just be highly surprised if that were the case based on what we currently know. I agree that ancient Venetic is much more likely to be an Italic substrate of language than any other and while I wouldn't rule out influences from Illyria entirely, I'd be skeptical of any claims of Venetic being closer to Illyrian languages than those of Italic. To me the big question mark is more so trying to understand what event seperated the Veneti from the Etruscans on a linguistic and ethnic comparison to other Italians. This is curious to me as the Rhaetics who appear much more geographically distant are historically claimed by writers such as Pliny and Livy to be a northern Etruscan ethnic group in race and language, where as the Veneti are understood to represent a different type of Italic people. What's more is that Polybius and Livy both claim that all of northern Italy outside of Venetic lands were originally etruscan descended before the Gallic invasions. This again singles out the Veneti as somewhat of an oddball Italic tribe amongst the rest, which did not have an etruscan affiliated origin.

It's probably my fault but again I have a hard time following your reasoning. I do not think Polybius and Livy meant literally all the people of northern Italy were Etruscan except the Veneti and that the Ligurians and the people of Golasecca were also Etruscans. Although there is growing evidence that the Etruscans had an ancient relationship with many parts of northern Italy. For example, for the Po Valley area now the trend among archaeologists is to regard it as fully Etruscan from the beginning, and not as the result of colonization from Etruria (unlike for example for Campania where the consensus is still in favor of colonization from Lazio to Campania). And the Etruscans were involved in the founding of Genoa, but that does not make Ligurians some kind of Etruscans.

I do not know if the Veneti will look significantly different from the IA/BA North Adriatic profile; I do not have a crystal ball.
 
and strabo claims that the Rhaetia and bulk of Alpine tribes where Illyrians of the interior and other Illyians of the coast



@Riverman .....................where do you think the illyrians came from........they did not come from southern balkans lands, nor eastern balkans lands .................they came as neighbours of the celtic-Italic group

 
and strabo claims that the Rhaetia and bulk of Alpine tribes where Illyrians of the interior and other Illyians of the coast



@Riverman .....................where do you think the illyrians came from........they did not come from southern balkans lands, nor eastern balkans lands .................they came as neighbours of the celtic-Italic group

Did he though? Based on the map alone, tribes like the Boii, Taurisci, etc... dwelling within a region labeled "Illyria Interior" does not make them Illyrians, so why would one assume the Rhaetians were? Did he specifically say they were within his writings?

He was writing within the 1st century BC, and by that time I'm guessing the Illyrians were well established in the region, but were disrupted by arrivals from Cisalpine Gaul who were defeated by the Romans in centuries prior, namely the Boii and Taurisci (affiliated with the Taurini, a Celto-Ligurian tribe)

Roman historians describe that region (Noricum, roughly) in centuries prior as very quarrelsome, and different peoples would gain predominance at different times between the Celts, Rhatians, and Illyrian tribes.
 
Did he though? Based on the map alone, tribes like the Boii, Taurisci, etc... dwelling within a region labeled "Illyria Interior" does not make them Illyrians, so why would one assume the Rhaetians were? Did he specifically say they were within his writings?

He was writing within the 1st century BC, and by that time I'm guessing the Illyrians were well established in the region, but were disrupted by arrivals from Cisalpine Gaul who were defeated by the Romans in centuries prior, namely the Boii and Taurisci (affiliated with the Taurini, a Celto-Ligurian tribe)

Roman historians describe that region (Noricum, roughly) in centuries prior as very quarrelsome, and different peoples would gain predominance at different times between the Celts, Rhatians, and Illyrian tribes.
strabo names other tribes as Illyrians who lived next to the Rhaeti
But the Vindelici and Norici occupy the greater part of the outer side of the mountain, along with the Breuni and the Genauni, the two peoples last named being Illyrians.198
read from #8 or read all...see below
 
Slavic influence in north eastern Italy has historically been extremely limited and small. Their invasions were halted by the Lombards and to this day their influence is really only seen in the furthest border regions of Friuli, east of the Natisone river. Even these types are disappearing and commonly have a large sum of influence from proper Friuliani of Udine. As a result in the past 100 years their population has gone from an estimated 300k to 80-100k. Similar to the Germanic speakers, while they do exist as a population, they are not particularly influential. and mostly restricted to border regions in and around the alps.

I think you're 100% correct in using Iron age Croatians (Illyrians) or just modern northern Italians as a proxy for the Iron age Veneti. The northern adriatic appears broadly genetically and culturally connected to northern Italy on the whole in the bronze age. The Picenes in the coming study should also have a similar profile based off of their description.
I guess that you should take a look upon Venetian Republic History.
There were several Slavic Settlers on Terraferma during Modern Ages, my lineage was just an example(From Vicenza and totally Slavic before XVI century, R1a-YP3929-FT62520).
You should record about Schiavone Marines, from Croatian and Slovenian origins, or about the Light Cavalry from Balkanites..both contribute to the Genetic Makeup of Venetian People.
About Lagonbards, they were more Eastern Celt(Boii, Noricum) than Germanic, as well as Bavarian Settlers called Cimbrians during Low Middle Ages, both groups didn't contribute much more than Slavic Settlers from Venetian Makeup.
Take a look upon medieval and modern Venetian history and soon you could answer me if you still with this sort of "conclusion".
Slavic Settlers didn't came before Lagonbards, so your argument sounds nonsense. I never mind Bulgarians or Magyar influence, those groups probably didn't contribute to the genetic makeup as much as Ostrogoths did, I m very specific about Post Black Deaths Population from Slavic Settlers, mostly Croatian and Slovenes, but even Polish Mercenaries, Russians and others went to Terraferma during that time.
If you lose a minute reading about the Military System of Venetian Army and Navy you will understand what I said.

If you doubt , just open a map and find the Schiavone Piazza , the Church of Schiavone or others references to the Croatian Population at Modern Ages on Venice and terraferma.
 
Also the "Germanic " influence around Veneto wasn't too different from Bergamo or Brescia, however the Slavic Influence was twice higher, we could easily points to 8-15% Slavic Influence upon Modern Days Veneto

Those sort of common sense assumptions neglects history and DNA, I have never seen any calculator that contradict the higher Northeastern Influence found around Veneto if we consider other Italians areas, except by Friuli Venezia Giulia.
Germanic influence was primarily found as a result of Bavarian Source from Middle Age Settlers, Lagonbards occupy the most dense and populated areas. Except by Cimbrians, that were Bavarian Admixed, there weren't any population from Veneto that have much more than 25% Germanic Influence properly, and I was really generous.

But well if you want to talk more about the History of Serenissima I will always be ready cause for me It is a great pleasure, I m 7/16 Venetian, my highest ancestry (from Paternal Side, + 1/8 Lombardian), track my ancestry from Vicenza since XVII century, probably as a Polish Mercenary that fought some of the Italian wars(my nearest relatives upon y lineage were Droutsky Russian Prince and a Romanian Noble), my family was a minor local rural elite until the Napoleonic Wars.
We could continuous the conversation with venetian language if you prefer, I speak Venetian, my Grandparents spoke it as mother tongue. Always a pleasure and please don't misunderstand what I said, glad it doesn't sounds offensive or arrogant.
 
Man, what sort of designation is "J" in 2023? These studies should try to do better.
 
I cannot follow your reasoning. What does it mean that ancient Veneti and northern Illyrians share a similar genetic origin in the Bronze Age? A similar ratio of ancestral components? Or same ancestors in the Bronze Age?
Why do various calculators like Illustrative DNA, MyTrueAncestry and G25 calculators claim that modern North Italians resemble BA/IA Illyrians?
 
Last edited:
Why do various calculators like Illustrative DNA, MyTrueAncestry and G25 calculators claim that modern North Italians resemble BA/IA Illyrians?
Similar proportion of component, high farmer (around 60%) and moderate steppe (30-35%) with low WHG. There may be some genuine balkan influence in northern italy but as pointed out we can only make conjectures until we got iron and bronze age samples from N. italy.
 
Similar proportion of component, high farmer (around 60%) and moderate steppe (30-35%) with low WHG. There may be some genuine balkan influence in northern italy but as pointed out we can only make conjectures until we got iron and bronze age samples from N. italy.
Why do modern Italians, even Northerners, have less WHG and less Steppe (except for the Martinsicuro Proto-Villanovan sample) than Iron Age Latins and Etruscans?
 
Why do modern Italians, even Northerners, have less WHG and less Steppe (except for the Martinsicuro Proto-Villanovan sample) than Iron Age Latins and Etruscans?
Where have you got this information from? From what i know the steppe level in the north and even center are actually higher than the IA latins and italics, while the WHG makes the real difference.
It is an interesting question, and the reason is probably imperial age admixture followed by germanic and central european influx during middle ages.
Note that the range of northern italy is pretty wide and some especially in alpine areas have more WHG.
 
Where have you got this information from? From what i know the steppe level in the north and even center are actually higher than the IA latins and italics, while the WHG makes the real difference.
It is an interesting question, and the reason is probably imperial age admixture followed by germanic and central european influx during middle ages.
Note that the range of northern italy is pretty wide and some especially in alpine areas have more WHG.
Maybe I was unclear but I agree that the modern north and centre of Italy tends to have more Steppe and less WHG than IA Central Italy.

However would early medieval Germanic admixture not raise WHG in north and central Italy of which there is no sign save in parts of the Alps.
 
Why do various calculators like Illustrative DNA, MyTrueAncestry and G25 calculators claim that modern North Italians resemble BA/IA Illyrians?

For the reasons explained by Stefano, similar ratio of ancestral components. Roughly speaking, in southern Europe, and the areas immediately closest to central Europe, WHG seems to follow a west-east gradient, with peaks in the westernmost part, and a gradual decrease the further east one goes, until in the southern Balkans and the Aegean WHG disappears altogether and is replaced by a CHG/Iran_N-type signal.

At present we do not know the level of WHG in northern Italy in the Iron Age, but it would seem very strange to me if it were lower on average than that found in Etruscans and Latins. We just have to wait for the analysis, maybe they will surprise us. Nor can it be ruled out that the results could be contradictory. Unfortunately, as I have said many times, there is a sample problem for the Iron Age of northern Italy because of incineration, which was also practiced by Etruscans and Latins in the beginning, only that they changed the funerary rite because of, perhaps, contacts with the Italics of Osco-Umbrian languages and with the Greeks.

For example, I was told that 11 samples of Iron Age individuals from Austria identified as Rhaetians were sent to laboratories for analysis, and it was not yet possible to use samples from Trentino-South Tyrol as well.

Obviously between the late Bronze and early Iron Age there must also have been a pseudo-Illlyrian Balkan influence, especially on the eastern part of Italy bordering the northern Balkans, but an influence is one thing, and it is another to trace the whole ethnogenesis of northern Italy to a proto-Illlyrian Bronze Age.


Why do modern Italians, even Northerners, have less WHG and less Steppe (except for the Martinsicuro Proto-Villanovan sample) than Iron Age Latins and Etruscans?


On Steppe I'm not so sure that's the case, for WHG because the population has changed demographically because of the reshuffling of the Roman era and everything after that, and there is definitely a Balkan influence in Italy, but a lot of it may be more from historical rather than protohistoric times. Without going into details because otherwise it becomes an endless discussion. In fact, for Martinsicuro Proto-Villanovan sample there has long been speculation that it may be of Balkan origin. In any case, it is only one sample and certainly cannot be used to draw conclusions about a phenomenon such as the protovillanovan on that is complex and extensive in large parts of Italy (but not all of it).


However would early medieval Germanic admixture not raise WHG in north and central Italy of which there is no sign save in parts of the Alps.

Indeed, the issue is complicated, and even geneticists do not have certain answers, but reason very schematically.
 
and strabo claims that the Rhaetia and bulk of Alpine tribes where Illyrians of the interior and other Illyians of the coast



@Riverman .....................where do you think the illyrians came from........they did not come from southern balkans lands, nor eastern balkans lands .................they came as neighbours of the celtic-Italic group


Just like I think the origins of Proto-Thracian will be clarified with the source of the expansive E-V13 haplogroup, the same can be applied to the Illyrians and their J-L283 main lineages.

There were and are different theories on their origin, but before we don't have clarified the origin of their main patrilineages, it remains conjecture. Sure, if we look Cetina, as a possible source, they got influenced very heavily by Bell Beakers. However, cultural and even genetic influence doesn't have to mean linguistic origins.

The only thing which is for sure is that by the Iron Age, when we know Illyrians archaeologically pretty well, the cremating people to their West (Veneti) and North (Frög and Kalenderberg group) were pretty different and show way more affinity to either Western Proto-Celts and Eastern Daco-Thracians (Eastern Urnfield, Basarabi) than to their Southern Illyrian neighbours.
 

This thread has been viewed 7526 times.

Back
Top