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

[torzio]

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.

The Doge's Palace guards from 1250 to 1797 where always Non-Slavic Dalmatian troops ....

you need to also recall the lands of the Veneti where Ostrogoth before the Lombards took them.

Later in history Grisons from Swiss lands supplied troops from 1610 for 50 years.......also Saxons and Lorraine (french ) troops , especially in the Gradisca wars against the Hapsburg supplied many men.......many men stayed
Venetians only had enough men to supply their Galleys as they used them like the Vikings did, that is, oarsmen where fighting men

 

[torzio]

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.

If we go back to bronze-age we see the celts with the italic in Czechia lands.....Illyrians east of them .................celts moved into southern and central Germany................Italics (Umbri ) in Italy along the adriatic, from Umbri come the sabellics, Sabines, Samnites, Volpsi and many others
Ligurians, Etruscans and Euganei where already in Italy as Indigenous peoples

The Illyrians followed the Umbri but stayed in the western balkans as far south as Dalmatia ..........where they did not move for many centuries

This is the summary

 

[torzio]

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.

I do not see any association of Illyrians with Thracians until the iron-age and only near Pannonia ( northern Dacia )

 

[Vitruvius]

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?

Both. It simply means they shared an ancestral origin which homogenized both regions genetically in the bronze age. For this reason they genetically will emerge in the historic era as effectively identical, but culturally they will have developed notable differences. The two likely regionalized during the Terramare or Protovillanovan era in which the alps and Adriatic began to act more as a cultural border and developed a more separate sense of tribal affiliation and identity.

The idea of an Illyrian origin of the Veneti is as old as time, and today is considered an outdated theory.

Like I said, I don't believe they were synonymous with Illyrians of the Iron age as far as identity goes. I just think they shared a common genetic origin out of the northern Balkans from the bronze age.

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?

In my opinion, yes as all bronze age samples in northern Italy average a BA Croatian like profile. As I showed earlier they also seem to overlap the BA Hungarian profile as well. I do agree that it would be nice to see IA northern Italian samples, but given the scarcity of this type of profile in other regions, and the recent studies on EMA Northern Italians, I think it's fair to say the profile's presence in N. Italy is likely to predate the historic era.

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?

It's extremely hard to evidence the vocabulary of Venetic for reason that northern Italic languages on the whole have very few written examples. That being said, my thought is that Venetic represents a primarily Italic substrate which developed in tandem with other parts of Italy within the protovillanovan context and I think this broad connection to italic is reasonably evidenced with what little we do have. I would assume that all or most similarities to the Illyrian languages would predate the iron age and are a result of bronze age population exchanges.

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.

No need to apologize. Perhaps I should explain further. The Golasseccans and Ligurians show extremely close cultural contacts with that of the Villanovans/Etruscans proper in archaeological contexts as you say and I too agree with the idea that Po valley does share a common genetic origin with the Etruscans from the start and not simply just as a result of Iron age colonization. Because of the relative closeness of IA etruscans to IA N. Illyrians on a genetic level, it would not surprise me if Iron age N. Italians fall within this cline. Polybius and Livy's accounts agree with the notion of widespread Etruscan domination of Po Valley not just on a political level, but also genetic. Polybius claims the Etruscans to be the oldest inhabitants of the plain and Livy claims the alpine tribes as being of the same racial stock as the Etruscans. Their connection to the region from these texts appears very archaic. Pliny the Elder also agrees at least on the topic of Rhaetics having an Etruscan origin, meaning all three authors seem to find this notion of long standing Etruscan presence and genetic contribution to N. Italy fairly agreeable.

"They [the Etruscans] first settled on this side the Apennines by the western sea in twelve cities, afterwards they founded twelve colonies beyond the Apennines, corresponding to the number of the mother cities. [10] These colonies held the whole of the country beyond the Po as far as the Alps, with the exception of the corner inhabited by the Veneti, who dwelt round an arm of the sea. [11] The Alpine tribes are undoubtedly of the same stock, especially the Raetii, who had through the nature of their country become so uncivilised that they retained no trace of their original condition except their language, and even this was not free from corruption." - Livy

Titus Livius (Livy), The History of Rome, Book 7, chapter 17

"The Etruscans were the oldest inhabitants of this plain [Po Valley] at the same period that they possessed also the Phlegraean plain in the neighbourhood of Capua and Nola, which, accessible and well known as it is to many, has such a reputation for fertility. 2 Those therefore who would know something of the dominion of the Etruscans should not look at the country they now inhabit, but at these plains and the resources they drew thence. 3 The Celts, being close neighbours of the Etruscans and associating much with them, cast covetous eyes on their beautiful country, and on a small pretext, suddenly attacked them with a large army and, expelling them from the plain of the Po, occupied it themselves." - Polybius

Polybius • Histories — Book 2

Part of a complete English translation of Polybius. Site contains many Greek and Latin texts, translations and related material.

penelope.uchicago.edu

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.

That's fair. I was just curious as to if you had some other theory or thought on the matter.

 

[Vitruvius]

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.

If you can show me some sort of evidence or statistic that slavic settlers composed a significant part of the Venetian republic I'd be interested to see it but everything I've seen has shown these types to be a very small minority population that settled very small tracts of lands. I'm not sure how you construed my statement to imply that slavs came before the langobards. That's not at all what I was attempting to say if that's how you interpreted it. I just don't see any evidence of significant slavic settlement in Italy both now and then. I acknowledge their existence, but only as for what they are - a very small minority group which represents 0.16% of people living in Italy and 1.6% of the people living in Veneto & FVG.

 

[Vitruvius]

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.

It indeed would have to. I think we will come to learn that IA northern Italy was not totally identical to IA C. Italy at some point in the future, but you have brought up one of the most damning pieces of evidence against the German repopulation hypothesis, which is that modern Italians in every region have almost no WHG at all (0-3%). This lack of WHG is not characteristic for populations north and west of Italy. A lack of WHG is strongly suggestive of a South Eastern European origin from the bronze age onwards, which is what I've been getting at. It seems more evident to me that Italy has been affected by several internal repopulation events which shifted ancestry southwards in the Roman early imperial era, and then back northward during the late roman era and middle ages. This stands in contrast to the Germanic & Middle Eastern repopulation scenarios which seem to be ceaselessly pushed by less than credible authors.

 

[Pax Augusta]

It indeed would have to. I think we will come to learn that IA northern Italy was not totally identical to IA C. Italy at some point in the future, but you have brought up one of the most damning pieces of evidence against the German repopulation hypothesis, which is that modern Italians in every region have almost no WHG at all (0-3%). This lack of WHG is not characteristic for populations north and west of Italy. A lack of WHG is strongly suggestive of a South Eastern European origin from the bronze age onwards, which is what I've been getting at. It seems more evident to me that Italy has been affected by several internal repopulation events which shifted ancestry southwards in the Roman early imperial era, and then back northward during the late roman era and middle ages. This stands in contrast to the Germanic & Middle Eastern repopulation scenarios which seem to be ceaselessly pushed by less than credible authors.

I think you are oversimplifying and you claim things that are contradictory to each other.; your main interest in this topic seems to be the ethnogenesis of modern Italians, and therefore your interest in ancient history becomes only functional to that. These topics need a more detached attitude. I say this to myself first.

It is clear that everything revolves around the WHG, but it is not true that modern Italians in every region have almost no WHG at all (0-3%), In some regions it exceeds 3 percent although it clearly does not reach Iron Age levels. The idea that Iron Age northern Italy was not quite the same as Iron Age central Italy is not supported by the few Bronze Age samples from northern Italy that we have.
I repeat for the umpteenth time that we are talking about a huge area with Alps, Prealps, foothills, hills, huge plains, and coastal area. Really hard to think that there was an identical genetic profile everywhere.

Clearly, it is possible that there were areas of Italy even in the early Iron Age with more recent Balkan influences and therefore less WHG, and therefore apparently more similar to modern Italians, but this does not change the crux of the matter. All the more so without then having the Iron Age samples

I agree that the issue is very complex and the model proposed by geneticists does not work; it really takes very large Germanic migrations for it to work. Not to mention that geneticists dismissed too early the hypothesis of a resurgence of an Iron Age profile after the imperial era. But that does not mean that to counter the arguments of the geneticists one can oversimplify.

Sticking to the facts, the various samples from Croatia and other parts of the Balkans resemble modern Italians, not ancient ones published so far. Hopefully, sooner or later they will start publishing these Iron Age samples

 

[Vallicanus]

The Germanic influence was small in medieval Italy as a whole save in the aristocracy and also at a more general local level in just a few limited areas.

 

[Vitruvius]

I think you are oversimplifying and you claim things that are contradictory to each other.; your main interest in this topic seems to be the ethnogenesis of modern Italians, and therefore your interest in ancient history becomes only functional to that. These topics need a more detached attitude. I say this to myself first.

Well, I'm replying to posts concerning the ethnogenesis of Italy, so I think it's hardly fair to critique such a topic. And what specifically do you think I've oversimplified or contradicted? I don't see anything invalidating what I've said thus far. My understanding of ancient history is based on what was passed down to us from ancient historians and that is what I form the basis of my reasoning upon. If that wasn't the case I wouldn't be quoting ancient authors.

It is clear that everything revolves around the WHG, but it is not true that modern Italians in every region have almost no WHG at all (0-3%), In some regions it exceeds 3 percent although it clearly does not reach Iron Age levels. The idea that Iron Age northern Italy was not quite the same as Iron Age central Italy is not supported by the few Bronze Age samples from northern Italy that we have.
I repeat for the umpteenth time that we are talking about a huge area with Alps, Prealps, foothills, hills, huge plains, and coastal area. Really hard to think that there was an identical genetic profile everywhere.

Which Italians have heavy amounts of WHG? I'm not counting german or slavic speakers in Italy when I say this of course as these are atypical minority populations. Also, the idea that Iron age northern Italy will average a modern profile (albeit inhomogeneously) is in fact supported by the BA Broion samples which do not show the spanish-like shifted average such as what you see in IA central Italy. As for what you choose to consider "identical" is unknown to me, but I'm simply saying I would be surprised if the profile was not overlapping moderns and the IA Adriatic. I don't know why this is so controversial given what we know so far, especially considering that central Italy has shown itself to being fairly homogeneous by the Iron age.

Clearly, it is possible that there were areas of Italy even in the early Iron Age with more recent Balkan influences and therefore less WHG, and therefore apparently more similar to modern Italians, but this does not change the crux of the matter. All the more so without then having the Iron Age samples

I'm fully willing to wait on Iron age samples. I'm just opining on the knowledge and samples that remains available from us from EMA & BA N. Italy, the IA/BA Northern Adriatic, and BA/IA/EMA C. Italy. The Broion overlap here is again, no coincidence in my opinion.

 

[kingdavid]

published :

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589004223022927#appsec2

 

[Viramund]

Data is available now: https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJEB60362
Can someone take a look at a most specific subclade for the 3 J samples?

 

[kingdavid]

Data is available now: https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJEB60362
Can someone take a look at a most specific subclade for the 3 J samples?

this was posted by ChrisR user in genarchivist forum


While there are no news regarding autosomal analysis (theytree or other sources), for Y-DNA it seems FamilyTreeDNA has included (almost) all samples in their Discover Tree:

2425-US112 (at=Italic) is E-V13(xCTS8814) and in https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/E-V13/tree TMRCA estimated 3145 BCE
E-M96>CTS9083>P147>P177>M215>M35>V68>M78>PF2179>Z1919>L618>CTS1975>V13

2069-US113 (at=GalloCeltic, K12b/G25 known) is E-FGC62258(xFGC62257) and in https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna...62258/tree TMRCA estimated 3984 BCE
E-M96>CTS9083>P147>P177>M215>M35>Z827>CTS10298>PF1962>M123>FT20896>FGC62222>PF4428>FGC62255>FGC62258

2427-US125 (at=Italic-EEF) is G-FT19044(xFT19542) and in https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/G-FT19044/tree TMRCA estimated 562 BCE
G-M201>L89>L156>P15>L1259>L30>L141>P303>L140>PF3346>Z3065>PF3345>L497>CTS9737>Z1817>Z727>CTS2230>L43>L42>Y11074>YSC0000033>Z44675>FT19044
The other modern descendants are two public
939237 Hans Ulrich Locher, b. 1507 and d. 1574 Switzerland G-FT19044>FT19542>FT18776
863808 Hans Ulrich Locher, b. 1507 and d. 1574 Switzerland G-FT19044>FT19542>FT18776
and one (probably) unpublic Austria G-FT19044>FT19542 (xFT18776)

2324-US158 (at=GalloCeltic) is G-FGC74134 and in https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna...74134/tree TMRCA estimated 300 CE
G-M201>L89>L156>P15>L1259>L30>L141>P303>L140>PF3346>Z3065>PF3345>L497>CTS9737>Z1817>Z727>CTS2230>Z726>CTS4803>BY102306>FT31911>FGC74134
The other modern descendant is public and from Vicenza, Veneto:
549519 Giacomo Panarotto b.unk d.18 Dec 1771, Montorso Italy G-FGC74134

2067-US100 (at=ItalicGaul) is I2-BY69238(xBY64082) and in https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/I-BY69238/tree TMRCA estimated 4240 BCE
I-L758>M170>P215>CTS2257>L460>P214>M223>P222>CTS616>CTS10057>L702>S22311>L703>PF6902>S12195>S21579>Y5670>Y5671>BY69238

2068-US105a (at=Italic) is I2-BY54321(xS12964,FT49685) and in https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/I-BY54321/tree TMRCA estimated 1367 BCE
I-L758>M170>P215>CTS2257>L460>P37>M423>S2770>CTS11030>CTS5375>CTS7213>S10302>L621>CTS10936>S19848>BY54321
The other modern descendants are from Germany, N.Ireland and Sweden

2424-US105c (at=ItalicGaul) is J2a2-FT417888(xFT417349) and in https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna...17888/tree TMRCA estimated 1174 CE ?!
J-M304>M172>M410>PF5050>MF10470>FT184963>FT187164>FT417683>FT417888
The other modern descendants (probably) unpublic are from Palestine and two unknown origin, one J-FT417683 from Corsica

2423-US118 and 2419-US484(?) (at=ItalicMedit) are J2b-L283-Y51320 and in https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/J-Y51320/tree TMRCA estimated 550 BCE
J-M304>M172>M102>Z529>Z1827>Z593>M241>L283>Z622>Z600>Z2509>Z585>Z615>Z8418>Z597>Z2507>Z1296>Z1297>Z1295>Z8421>Z631>Z1043>Z8425>Z8424>Z8429>Y51320
The other modern descendant is public
225319 Leif Alstad, Alstahaug, NRL Norway J-Y51320

2426-US120 (at=ItalicMedit) and 2428-US123 (at=ItalicCelt) are R1a-M417 and in https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/R-M417/tree TMRCA estimated 3490 BCE
R-M207>M173>M420>M459>M198>M417 (I wonder if this is truly the current terminal Hg)

2404-US137 (at=Italic) is R1b-U152-S8183(xBY66078,FT44656) and in https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/R-S8183/tree TMRCA estimated 2294 BCE
R-M207>M173>M343>L754>L761>L389>P297>M269>L23>L51>P310>L151>P312>Z46516>ZZ11>U152>L2>Z49>S8183

2417-US482(?) is R1b-U152-Y4354(xY4355,S8172) and in https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/R-Y4354/tree TMRCA estimated 1920 BCE
R-M207>M173>M343>L754>L761>L389>P297>M269>L23>L51>P310>L151>P312>Z46516>ZZ11>U152>L2>Z49>S8183>Y4356>Y4353>Y4354

2430-US167 (at=BritoGerman) is R1b-PF7589-CTS11659(xZ6817,FT40375) and in https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna...11659/tree TMRCA estimated 2267 BCE
R-M207>M173>M343>L754>L761>L389>P297>M269>L23>L51>PF7589>CTS10379>CTS6889>Z2120>FGC48821>S1141>CTS11824>CTS11659

Currently neither under R1b-P312 or R1b-U106 or R1b-Z2103 in discover tree:
1895-US163 (at=Italic) R1b-U152-L20?
@R.Rocca or others: could you find this sample with a deeper analysis?

NB: the (xSNP) mentions are assumptions from the discover tree but are unverified, same for the terminal SNP state, all equivalent SNPs would need to be verified in the raw data.

 

[TetaEglantina]

What do people make of this being found in Italy?

https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/I-BY54321/tree

I reckon it originally entered with Urnfield, would be good to get some samples a thousand years earlier

 

[felipefanfarao]

this was posted by ChrisR user in genarchivist forum


While there are no news regarding autosomal analysis (theytree or other sources), for Y-DNA it seems FamilyTreeDNA has included (almost) all samples in their Discover Tree:

2425-US112 (at=Italic) is E-V13(xCTS8814) and in https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/E-V13/tree TMRCA estimated 3145 BCE
E-M96>CTS9083>P147>P177>M215>M35>V68>M78>PF2179>Z1919>L618>CTS1975>V13

2069-US113 (at=GalloCeltic, K12b/G25 known) is E-FGC62258(xFGC62257) and in https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna...62258/tree TMRCA estimated 3984 BCE
E-M96>CTS9083>P147>P177>M215>M35>Z827>CTS10298>PF1962>M123>FT20896>FGC62222>PF4428>FGC62255>FGC62258

2427-US125 (at=Italic-EEF) is G-FT19044(xFT19542) and in https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/G-FT19044/tree TMRCA estimated 562 BCE
G-M201>L89>L156>P15>L1259>L30>L141>P303>L140>PF3346>Z3065>PF3345>L497>CTS9737>Z1817>Z727>CTS2230>L43>L42>Y11074>YSC0000033>Z44675>FT19044
The other modern descendants are two public
939237 Hans Ulrich Locher, b. 1507 and d. 1574 Switzerland G-FT19044>FT19542>FT18776
863808 Hans Ulrich Locher, b. 1507 and d. 1574 Switzerland G-FT19044>FT19542>FT18776
and one (probably) unpublic Austria G-FT19044>FT19542 (xFT18776)

2324-US158 (at=GalloCeltic) is G-FGC74134 and in https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna...74134/tree TMRCA estimated 300 CE
G-M201>L89>L156>P15>L1259>L30>L141>P303>L140>PF3346>Z3065>PF3345>L497>CTS9737>Z1817>Z727>CTS2230>Z726>CTS4803>BY102306>FT31911>FGC74134
The other modern descendant is public and from Vicenza, Veneto:
549519 Giacomo Panarotto b.unk d.18 Dec 1771, Montorso Italy G-FGC74134

2067-US100 (at=ItalicGaul) is I2-BY69238(xBY64082) and in https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/I-BY69238/tree TMRCA estimated 4240 BCE
I-L758>M170>P215>CTS2257>L460>P214>M223>P222>CTS616>CTS10057>L702>S22311>L703>PF6902>S12195>S21579>Y5670>Y5671>BY69238

2068-US105a (at=Italic) is I2-BY54321(xS12964,FT49685) and in https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/I-BY54321/tree TMRCA estimated 1367 BCE
I-L758>M170>P215>CTS2257>L460>P37>M423>S2770>CTS11030>CTS5375>CTS7213>S10302>L621>CTS10936>S19848>BY54321
The other modern descendants are from Germany, N.Ireland and Sweden

2424-US105c (at=ItalicGaul) is J2a2-FT417888(xFT417349) and in https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna...17888/tree TMRCA estimated 1174 CE ?!
J-M304>M172>M410>PF5050>MF10470>FT184963>FT187164>FT417683>FT417888
The other modern descendants (probably) unpublic are from Palestine and two unknown origin, one J-FT417683 from Corsica

2423-US118 and 2419-US484(?) (at=ItalicMedit) are J2b-L283-Y51320 and in https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/J-Y51320/tree TMRCA estimated 550 BCE
J-M304>M172>M102>Z529>Z1827>Z593>M241>L283>Z622>Z600>Z2509>Z585>Z615>Z8418>Z597>Z2507>Z1296>Z1297>Z1295>Z8421>Z631>Z1043>Z8425>Z8424>Z8429>Y51320
The other modern descendant is public
225319 Leif Alstad, Alstahaug, NRL Norway J-Y51320

2426-US120 (at=ItalicMedit) and 2428-US123 (at=ItalicCelt) are R1a-M417 and in https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/R-M417/tree TMRCA estimated 3490 BCE
R-M207>M173>M420>M459>M198>M417 (I wonder if this is truly the current terminal Hg)

2404-US137 (at=Italic) is R1b-U152-S8183(xBY66078,FT44656) and in https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/R-S8183/tree TMRCA estimated 2294 BCE
R-M207>M173>M343>L754>L761>L389>P297>M269>L23>L51>P310>L151>P312>Z46516>ZZ11>U152>L2>Z49>S8183

2417-US482(?) is R1b-U152-Y4354(xY4355,S8172) and in https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/R-Y4354/tree TMRCA estimated 1920 BCE
R-M207>M173>M343>L754>L761>L389>P297>M269>L23>L51>P310>L151>P312>Z46516>ZZ11>U152>L2>Z49>S8183>Y4356>Y4353>Y4354

2430-US167 (at=BritoGerman) is R1b-PF7589-CTS11659(xZ6817,FT40375) and in https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna...11659/tree TMRCA estimated 2267 BCE
R-M207>M173>M343>L754>L761>L389>P297>M269>L23>L51>PF7589>CTS10379>CTS6889>Z2120>FGC48821>S1141>CTS11824>CTS11659

Currently neither under R1b-P312 or R1b-U106 or R1b-Z2103 in discover tree:
1895-US163 (at=Italic) R1b-U152-L20?
@R.Rocca or others: could you find this sample with a deeper analysis?

NB: the (xSNP) mentions are assumptions from the discover tree but are unverified, same for the terminal SNP state, all equivalent SNPs would need to be verified in the raw data.

LoL R-M417, I m R1a indeed from Veneto, Vicenza, I guess that weren't no connection cause mine YP3929 was related to Galicia-Southeastern Poland individuals, but it is really interesting. Maybe some unrelated - to modern individuals - terminal lineage, probably L664. L664 was common among CWC from Switzerland and Germany, probably replaced by CWC Czech and Polish R1b-L151 groups(mostly)- some will arribute to Balkanic Yamnaya expansion indeed.
We can't proper say, but at least one Italo-Celtic individual or maybe some Greek, Paleo Balkanic, etc... Doubt one Slavonic(Pre Proto Balto Slavic) or Germanic.
Dearth End lineage, for sure

 

[Archetype0ne]

this was posted by ChrisR user in genarchivist forum


While there are no news regarding autosomal analysis (theytree or other sources), for Y-DNA it seems FamilyTreeDNA has included (almost) all samples in their Discover Tree:

2425-US112 (at=Italic) is E-V13(xCTS8814) and in https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/E-V13/tree TMRCA estimated 3145 BCE
E-M96>CTS9083>P147>P177>M215>M35>V68>M78>PF2179>Z1919>L618>CTS1975>V13

2069-US113 (at=GalloCeltic, K12b/G25 known) is E-FGC62258(xFGC62257) and in https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna...62258/tree TMRCA estimated 3984 BCE
E-M96>CTS9083>P147>P177>M215>M35>Z827>CTS10298>PF1962>M123>FT20896>FGC62222>PF4428>FGC62255>FGC62258

2427-US125 (at=Italic-EEF) is G-FT19044(xFT19542) and in https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/G-FT19044/tree TMRCA estimated 562 BCE
G-M201>L89>L156>P15>L1259>L30>L141>P303>L140>PF3346>Z3065>PF3345>L497>CTS9737>Z1817>Z727>CTS2230>L43>L42>Y11074>YSC0000033>Z44675>FT19044
The other modern descendants are two public
939237 Hans Ulrich Locher, b. 1507 and d. 1574 Switzerland G-FT19044>FT19542>FT18776
863808 Hans Ulrich Locher, b. 1507 and d. 1574 Switzerland G-FT19044>FT19542>FT18776
and one (probably) unpublic Austria G-FT19044>FT19542 (xFT18776)

2324-US158 (at=GalloCeltic) is G-FGC74134 and in https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna...74134/tree TMRCA estimated 300 CE
G-M201>L89>L156>P15>L1259>L30>L141>P303>L140>PF3346>Z3065>PF3345>L497>CTS9737>Z1817>Z727>CTS2230>Z726>CTS4803>BY102306>FT31911>FGC74134
The other modern descendant is public and from Vicenza, Veneto:
549519 Giacomo Panarotto b.unk d.18 Dec 1771, Montorso Italy G-FGC74134

2067-US100 (at=ItalicGaul) is I2-BY69238(xBY64082) and in https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/I-BY69238/tree TMRCA estimated 4240 BCE
I-L758>M170>P215>CTS2257>L460>P214>M223>P222>CTS616>CTS10057>L702>S22311>L703>PF6902>S12195>S21579>Y5670>Y5671>BY69238

2068-US105a (at=Italic) is I2-BY54321(xS12964,FT49685) and in https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/I-BY54321/tree TMRCA estimated 1367 BCE
I-L758>M170>P215>CTS2257>L460>P37>M423>S2770>CTS11030>CTS5375>CTS7213>S10302>L621>CTS10936>S19848>BY54321
The other modern descendants are from Germany, N.Ireland and Sweden

2424-US105c (at=ItalicGaul) is J2a2-FT417888(xFT417349) and in https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna...17888/tree TMRCA estimated 1174 CE ?!
J-M304>M172>M410>PF5050>MF10470>FT184963>FT187164>FT417683>FT417888
The other modern descendants (probably) unpublic are from Palestine and two unknown origin, one J-FT417683 from Corsica

2423-US118 and 2419-US484(?) (at=ItalicMedit) are J2b-L283-Y51320 and in https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/J-Y51320/tree TMRCA estimated 550 BCE
J-M304>M172>M102>Z529>Z1827>Z593>M241>L283>Z622>Z600>Z2509>Z585>Z615>Z8418>Z597>Z2507>Z1296>Z1297>Z1295>Z8421>Z631>Z1043>Z8425>Z8424>Z8429>Y51320
The other modern descendant is public
225319 Leif Alstad, Alstahaug, NRL Norway J-Y51320

2426-US120 (at=ItalicMedit) and 2428-US123 (at=ItalicCelt) are R1a-M417 and in https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/R-M417/tree TMRCA estimated 3490 BCE
R-M207>M173>M420>M459>M198>M417 (I wonder if this is truly the current terminal Hg)

2404-US137 (at=Italic) is R1b-U152-S8183(xBY66078,FT44656) and in https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/R-S8183/tree TMRCA estimated 2294 BCE
R-M207>M173>M343>L754>L761>L389>P297>M269>L23>L51>P310>L151>P312>Z46516>ZZ11>U152>L2>Z49>S8183

2417-US482(?) is R1b-U152-Y4354(xY4355,S8172) and in https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/R-Y4354/tree TMRCA estimated 1920 BCE
R-M207>M173>M343>L754>L761>L389>P297>M269>L23>L51>P310>L151>P312>Z46516>ZZ11>U152>L2>Z49>S8183>Y4356>Y4353>Y4354

2430-US167 (at=BritoGerman) is R1b-PF7589-CTS11659(xZ6817,FT40375) and in https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna...11659/tree TMRCA estimated 2267 BCE
R-M207>M173>M343>L754>L761>L389>P297>M269>L23>L51>PF7589>CTS10379>CTS6889>Z2120>FGC48821>S1141>CTS11824>CTS11659

Currently neither under R1b-P312 or R1b-U106 or R1b-Z2103 in discover tree:
1895-US163 (at=Italic) R1b-U152-L20?
@R.Rocca or others: could you find this sample with a deeper analysis?

NB: the (xSNP) mentions are assumptions from the discover tree but are unverified, same for the terminal SNP state, all equivalent SNPs would need to be verified in the raw data.

Holy hell, how did L283 get in Leif Alstad, Alstahaug of all places in 550BCE?

https://imgur.com/8QliFV9

All I am going to say, if we find ancient L283 in the North Pole, you know I wont be surprised.

 

[mount123]

Holy hell, how did L283 get in Leif Alstad, Alstahaug of all places in 550BCE?

https://imgur.com/8QliFV9

All I am going to say, if we find ancient L283 in the North Pole, you know I wont be surprised.

That's just the TMRCA of the modern represantative ChrisR posted as far as I can tell. There are two samples in this study and they're from the Italian alps. They have been added to the L283 map too.

 

[Archetype0ne]

That's just the TMRCA of the modern represantative ChrisR posted as far as I can tell. There are two samples in this study and they're from the Italian alps. They have been added to the L283 map too.

Makes sense. Keep skimming over posts and getting confused lol.

 

[Robotnick]

Holy hell, how did L283 get in Leif Alstad, Alstahaug of all places in 550BCE?

https://imgur.com/8QliFV9

All I am going to say, if we find ancient L283 in the North Pole, you know I wont be surprised.

Snorri Sturlesson was right about Odin and Thorr being from Troy... (just kidding)

Though seriously these E-V13 and J2b-L283s really got around since the Urnfield period.

 

[TetaEglantina]

Snorri Sturlesson was right about Odin and Thorr being from Troy... (just kidding)

Though seriously these E-V13 and J2b-L283s really got around since the Urnfield period.

It's unlikely to have to do with Urnfield. Furthest north Urnfield went was Denmark and in the tollense battle there were zero j2b l283 samples but many i2 and even an r1a. Looks like J2b l283 stayed mostly in west Balkans until Roman period

 

[HereToLearn]

The Germanic influence was small in medieval Italy as a whole save in the aristocracy and also at a more general local level in just a few limited areas.

It probably was, however there is relative abundance of late antiquity authors lamenting/welcoming (the former more often than the latter) the Germanic presence in late Roman society.