Lombard DNA in Italy

The Germanic people who came to Italy around AD CE are called in Italian the Langobardi. The modern day inhabitants of Lombardia, who are, of course, a mixture of various migrations, are referred to in Italian as Lombardi. Historically, the term was also used for northern Italians in general who settled parts of Sicily after the Moorish era. The confusion is only among English speakers, because they use the one term, "Lombards", for both the Germanic early Medieval migration and for modern inhabitants of the province of Lombardia.

There is no question when the Lombard invasion occurred. They settled in various areas of Europe before entering Italy. It is also clear that they carried some affiliated tribes with them. Likewise, therefore, they may have carried a number of yDna haplogroups.

The Lombard influence is a superstrate which didn't have much of an impact.

Hence the fact that some linguists have suggested that the Gallo-Italic dialect known as Lombardic has Provençal as its basis. The overarching sense of the term Lombard within Italy appears then to have been geographical and political rather than ethnic.
 
Hence the fact that some linguists have suggested that the Gallo-Italic dialect known as Lombardic has Provençal as its basis. The overarching sense of the term Lombard within Italy appears then to have been geographical and political rather than ethnic.

No, that isn't correct. In the Italian language we have one term for the migrating/invading Germanic peoples, the Langobardi, and a separate term for the modern inhabitants of the province of Lombardia, which is Lombardi. As I said, "The confusion is only among English speakers, because they use the one term, "Lombards", for both the Germanic early Medieval migration people and for modern inhabitants of the province of Lombardia."

It is not just a question of politics or geography. The differences are also genetic. The Langobardi were a specific ethno/linguistic group who formed part of the ethnogenesis of the Italian people. The question is how big was the genetic impact.
 
No, that isn't correct. In the Italian language, we have one term for the migrating/invading Germanic peoples, the Langobardi, and a separate term for the modern inhabitants of the province of Lombardia, which is Lombardi. As I said, "The confusion is only among English speakers, because they use the one term, "Lombards", for both the Germanic early Medieval migration and for modern inhabitants of the province of Lombardia."

It is not just a question of politics or geography. The differences are also genetic. The Langobardi were a specific ethno/linguistic group who formed part of the ethnogenesis of the Italian people. The question is how big was the genetic impact.

The genetic differences between the Longobardi (Cisalpine Italians) and Lombard (Germanic) population in Italy is confusing as the Lombard rulers of say Sicily encouraged the migration of Longobardi (not Lombards) who spoke Lombardic (Gallo-Italian). Therefore, the Germanic R1a and I yDNA groups would bring in U152 with them...

Is there a village or region in Italy that has a significant and definite Lombard (Germanic) history with no major population shifts. This would prove useful in determining the Germanic Lombard yDNA markers in Italy. Is there a Germanic dialect of Italian?
 
Hence the fact that some linguists have suggested that the Gallo-Italic dialect known as Lombardic has Provençal as its basis. The overarching sense of the term Lombard within Italy appears then to have been geographical and political rather than ethnic.

No, that's not correct either. Provencal developed in its own area, the so called Gallo-Italic dialects in another. There are similarities, but the Gallo-Italic dialects do not derive from Provencal.

Please see the following thread. There are a few posts which address the issue, as well as the effect of the Langobard language on modern Italian.
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/31115-The-Italian-Language
 
No, that's not correct either. Provencal developed in its own area, the so called Gallo-Italic dialects in another. There are similarities, but the Gallo-Italic dialects do not derive from Provencal.

Please see the following thread. There are a few posts which address the issue, as well as the effect of the Langobard language on modern Italian.
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/31115-The-Italian-Language

The Franco-Provençal language, a distinct from French language that shares features of both French and Provençal. This is different to the Provencal dialect which is very different and not applicable to our discussion.

This Franco-Provençal is also referred to as Arpitan or Romand. It is strictly speaking not Gallo-Italic but rather Gallo-Romance language spoken in east-central France, western Switzerland, northwestern Italy, and in enclaves in the Province of Foggia in Apulia, Italy.

Franco-Provençal has several distinct dialects and is separate from but closely related to neighboring Romance languages such as Gallo-Italic, Occitan, Gallo-Italian and Romansh. The Gallo-Italic languages have characteristics both of the Gallo-Romance languages to the northwest (including French and Occitan) and the Italo-Romance languages to the south (including standard Italian).
 
The genetic differences between the Longobardi (Cisalpine Italians) and Lombard (Germanic) population in Italy is confusing as the Lombard rulers of say Sicily encouraged the migration of Longobardi (not Lombards) who spoke Lombardic (Gallo-Italian). Therefore, the Germanic R1a and I yDNA groups would bring in U152 with them...

Is there a village or region in Italy that has a significant and definite Lombard (Germanic) history with no major population shifts. This would prove useful in determining the Germanic Lombard yDNA markers in Italy.

The Langobardi are not Cisalpine Italians. I don't know how to make this any clearer. The Langobardi were a "Germanic speaking" people who didn't get to Italy until 560 AD. There were people already in Italy at that time, yes? First we have the mesolithic hunter gatherers, although we don't have any samples yet so we don't know if they were WHG like or something else, and it's unclear how much of their ancestry might have survived. I don't think much did, but I don't think we can say that none did, and it may have varied by region. Then we have the migration of Neolithic peoples to all parts of the peninsula, mostly Cardial, but some influence also from the Danubian Neolithic, I think. Then we have some Copper Age/Bronze Age migrations, and some from central Europe during the Iron Age.

By 560 AD when the Langobardi arrived, there were already genetic differences between "Cisalpine" Italians and Italians further south, partly, in my opinion, having to do with differing amounts of survival of mesolithic era hunter gatherers, partly to do with differing types of Indo-European input coming from different directions, partly to do with "Celtici" migrations in the first millennium BC. The Langobardi just added to the mix.

"Cisalpine" Italians would be different genetically depending on the time period under discussion.

The "Lombardi" are the ethno-linguistic group which inhabits, generally speaking, the provincia of Lombardia, although the term was used in a loose way to describe the people who were brought in to re-populate certain areas of Sicily after the Moorish era. Those medieval newcomers to Sicily also included people from Liguria, for example.

I started a thread about attempts to quantify the amount of Langobard influence in Italy. They are supposedly testing a lot of samples. The first paper has been a bit disappointing, however. It is based on samples from Piemonte, and tries to compare the ancient samples to modern Piemontesi. However, they only tested mtDna, or at least they only published the mtDna results. The results are inconclusive. One rural town does seem to match quite well, but I'm not convinced that the mtDna of the ancient samples isn't itself a mixture of mtDna from various places in Europe. At any rate, in other areas of Piemonte the signal isn't as strong, doubtless because of all the mixing that has gone on. I don't see how you can get an overall percentage of influence from uniparental markers anyway, especially not mtDna. I think we would need autosomal analysis, although of course yDna is important as well.

This is the paper:
Genealogical Relationships between Early Medieval and Modern Inhabitants of Piedmont
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4312042/

See the discussion here:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...hern-Italy-(Piemonte)?highlight=Lombard+mtDna

If you would like, I can merge the threads.

I think part of the problem is that in countries like France, Spain and Italy it's unclear whether there seems to be so little genetic influence from the Germanic migrations because these were elite migrations which wouldn't have had much impact on areas which were very densely populated, or because these peoples were a very mixed group themselves who already shared some genetic similarity with some of the peoples of the areas they entered.

Ralph and Coop address this concern here:
"
[h=4]Italy, Iberia, and France.[/h]"On the other hand, we find that France and the Italian and Iberian peninsulas have the lowest rates of genetic common ancestry in the last 1,500 years (other than Turkey and Cyprus), and are the regions of continental Europe thought to have been least affected by the Slavic and Hunnic migrations. These regions were, however, moved into by Germanic tribes (e.g., the Goths, Ostrogoths, and Vandals), which suggests that perhaps the Germanic migrations/invasions of these regions entailed a smaller degree of population replacement than the Slavic and/or Hunnic, or perhaps that the Germanic groups were less genealogically cohesive. This is consistent with the argument that the Slavs moved into relatively depopulated areas, while Gothic “migrations” may have been takeovers by small groups of extant populations [54],[55]."
http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1001555

These "Germanic" migrants might have picked up a lot of what could be called central European ancestry, to put it broadly, which was similar to some types of dna already present in these countries.
 
The major centres of the Lombards in Sicily, called historically Oppida Lombardorum, are where one finds dialects that can still be heard today. In San Fratello, some linguists have suggested that the Gallo-Italic dialect present today has Franco-Provençal as its basis, having been a fort manned by Provençal mercenaries in the early decades of the Norman conquest (bearing in mind that it took the Normans 30 years to conquer the whole of the island).
 
Please keep this thread separate Angela, thanks for offering to merge them but I think this discussion is slightly different.

I have noticed a belief (if one can call intuitive science that) that Germanic DNA exists when enough commmercial testing has been done to disprove such a thesis. Germanic IMHO is R1b-U106. The rest is pre-Germanic if one can use Germanic as a time-specific term... but for purposes of this discussion it is necessary. Celtic is broader than people imagine and Germanic is not nearly as old as people imagine it to be. Just my observation.
 
Let me approach the question differently, seeing as it is quite a sensitive issue and seems to make some individuals rather defensive.

Does the term Lombard in Italy (or similar context) refer to:
1. The Lombard peoples from Northern Europe (Germanic).
2. The people in Lombardia, Italy.
3. The people who speak/spoke the Western and/or Eastern Lombard dialect, a member of the Gallo-Italic language group.

After answering the above question, now keep in mind the following:
- Did the population movement into Lombardy occur over time or mostly at one specific period in history?
- Did the population(s) moving into Lombardy travel alone or did they bring other populations with them, and if so who?
- If we refer to Germanic-speaking Lombards, are there linguistic traces in the Lombard dialect (Italy)?

There is no confusion in Italian: Lombardi are the northern Italians (modern-day people from Lombardy or the historical term refrerred to the most of north-west Italy: Lombardy plus Emilia, Piedmont and Liguria) while Longobardi (or Langobardi) are the Germanic tribe only. The confusion is due to the English language that uses for both - northern Italians and the Germanic tribe - the same word: Lombard.
 
Where are you getting that figure? It's much higher than that. One of the latest studies of yDna in Italy is Boattini et al, (2013 and 2014) which was discussed here at this site. Please check the figures for U-152 in Treviso, which is in the Veneto. It's closer to 30%.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0065441
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0096074

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/28657-Breakdown-of-R1b-subclades-in-Italy-(Boattini-et-al-)

That doesn't mean that I necessarily think most of it came with the Lombards. I think it's very likely that it came with Italics or other "Indo-European" migrations that were earlier than the Lombards (perhaps Urnfield) and perhaps some downstream clades with the Celtici. That doesn't mean that some clades couldn't have come with the Lombards, since they traveled through U-152 territory.
Please see here:
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/asset?unique&id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0065441.s013
In Vicenze,there is very few R1B-U152.More exactly 4 R1B-U152 from 40.That is 10%.
While I1 is 7 from 39, of the paternal lines,in Vicenze.That is like 16%.
So I think this makes clear that Lombards did not carried any R1B-U152.
As for Latins carrying R1b-U152 how is possible that in Catania from 50 samples,only 1 to be R1b-U152?
Now another point,who invented "Romans"?
It was Latins,people from Rome and Lazium (which is today called Lazio) speaking Latin language and being called Latins.
They,Latins were ruling Roman Empire.
I am also curious what paternal lines Latins were bearing,but from the paternal lines,where Roman Empire ruled,is more likely they were carrying J2 and G and who knows what else.
As for Maciamo map of R1B-U152,sorry ,according to Boatini et al. is not accurate.
 
I am also curious what paternal lines Latins were bearing,but from the paternal lines,where Roman Empire ruled,is more likely they were carrying J2 and G and who knows what else.

Romans with Latin paternal lines carried clades of R1b (U-152 and others). Still today R1b is the most common male HG in Italy.
 
Roman with Latin paternal lines were bearing clades of R1b (U-152 and others). Still today R1b is the most common male HG in Italy.
Yes,that is true,that R1B (U152) is most common paternal line in Italy.
But Latins,according to the legend came by boat from Troy.
So is very possible that they were carrying most G clades.
They had a very advanced fighting technique ,I mean Roman Empire,so that legend telling Latins came from Troy could be actually true.
Their fighting techniques were amazing,even if we take today armies.
 
Yes,that is true,that R1B (U152) is most common paternal line in Italy.
But Latins,according to the legend came by boat from Troy.

It's a legend that Romans stole from the Etruscans according to some scholars. If you know the rise of the power of the Romans and the history of Etruscans, you will agree with that.
 
Please see here:
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/asset?unique&id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0065441.s013
In Vicenze,there is very few R1B-U152.More exactly 4 R1B-U152 from 40.That is 10%.
While I1 is 7 from 39, of the paternal lines,in Vicenze.That is like 16%.
So I think this makes clear that Lombards did not carried any R1B-U152.
As for Latins carrying R1b-U152 how is possible that in Catania from 50 samples,only 1 to be R1b-U152?
Now another point,who invented "Romans"?
It was Latins,people from Rome and Lazium (which is today called Lazio) speaking Latin language and being called Latins.
They,Latins were ruling Roman Empire.
I am also curious what paternal lines Latins were bearing,but from the paternal lines,where Roman Empire ruled,is more likely they were carrying J2 and G and who knows what else.
As for Maciamo map of R1B-U152,sorry ,according to Boatini et al. is not accurate.

Well, now we're up to 16%, not 10%. Also, you didn't say that one study showed 10% U152 (or 16% if you prefer) in one town in northeast Italy. You said it was 10% in all of northeast Italy, which is a very different thing and manifestly incorrect.

Boattini et al is one study which uses very small samples, even if it is an exceptionally well done study in that it provides more subclade resolution than most studies, and is based on regional surnames, which is much better than even the four grandparent test. The Eupedia chart is based on more than one study and is an average of them, so therefore has to be considered more accurate for the region as a whole.

As to the "Romans", we would first of all have to decide the relevant time period. The "Romans" of the first settlements on the seven hills, the Republican era, the era of Augustus? Should it be extended to all of Lazio? What about the Sabine era? Where are you going to draw the line geographically as well as temporally? The people of Sicily, in addition to Italic influence (and prior Neolithic influence, and perhaps slightly different Bronze Age migrations) would have had much more influence from the direction of Greece, and so their "mix" would have been different than that in central Italy, in my opinion, but these are all speculations.

If you're talking about the people of the upper classes in central Italy during the early imperial period under Augustus, for example, I think we would find R1b and also some J2, G2 and perhaps even some E-V13. I don't know the percentages. I think we're just going to have to wait for ancient Dna and recognize that even if we get a few samples, they might not be totally representative of the whole.
 
There is no confusion in Italian: Lombardi are the northern Italians, Longobardi (or Langobardi) are the Germanic tribe. The confusion is due to the English language that uses for both - northern Italians and the Germanic tribe - the same word: Lombard.

The English language is not at fault, trust me on this. Lombard has always been Lombard in any language. Langobardi is a poor rendition of the word that refers to the Germanic Lombards. A corruption of the correct term 'Lombard'.

The question is why would one need to corrupt a perfectly fine name such as Lombard into Langobardi or Longobardi? It is not as if the correct term does not exist in Italian. It is being used to describe the citizens of Lombardy. It is quite silly if you ask me. If there are two countries with the same name then the people would be called the same name. Two Lombardies makes no difference. It's Lombardy in Germany and Lombardy in Italy ... therefore the citizen of Lombardy in Germany is a Lombard and the citizen of Lombardy in Italy is a Lombard.

In Italy, there is confusion because the region of Lombardy speaks a dialect which is called Lombardo but bares no resemblance to Germanic, rather it is Gallo-Italian. Similarly, in Sicily where the Lombards established themselves ... there are Gallo-Italian dialects.

All of this suggests that the Lombards were from Northwestern Italy and Southeastern France, not Germany as the term Lombardi suggests. This is the problem and it is easy to rectify, simply name them Northwestern Italian, Ligurii, Genovesi or anything that resembles their origins. Lombards they definitely were NOT.
 
The English language is not at fault, trust me on this. Lombard has always been Lombard in any language. Langobardi is a poor rendition of the word that refers to the Germanic Lombards. A corruption of the correct term 'Lombard'.

The question is why would one need to corrupt a perfectly fine name such as Lombard into Langobardi or Longobardi? It is not as if the correct term does not exist in Italian. It is being used to describe the citizens of Lombardy. It is quite silly if you ask me. If there are two countries with the same name then the people would be called the same name. Two Lombardies makes no difference. It's Lombardy in Germany and Lombardy in Italy ... therefore the citizen of Lombardy in Germany is a Lombard and the citizen of Lombardy in Italy is a Lombard.

In Italy, there is confusion because the region of Lombardy speaks a dialect which is called Lombardo but bares no resemblance to Germanic, rather it is Gallo-Italian. Similarly, in Sicily where the Lombards established themselves ... there are Gallo-Italian dialects.

All of this suggests that the Lombards were from Northwestern Italy and Southeastern France, not Germany as the term Lombardi suggests. This is the problem and it is easy to rectify, simply name them Northwestern Italian, Ligurii, Genovesi or anything that resembles their origins. Lombards they definitely were NOT.

You base this opinion on what exactly? You are a native speaker of Italian perhaps? Any native speaker knows the difference. Or perhaps you are a linguist with a specialty in Italian who has detailed knowledge of the derivation of these terms? Or maybe you are an expert on historical texts written in Italian over the centuries about these invasions? I somehow think not.

The Langobardi invaded Italy from the northeast around 560AD. Their migration is described by Paul the Deacon, and these people are attested in Roman texts as well. It is also the fact that the trail of their migrations is attested archaeologically; by settlements, distinctive burial sites, and artifacts. This is all beyond dispute. You are not entitled to rewrite history.

http://www.ancient.eu/Lombards/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lombards
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/346673/Lombard
http://rbedrosian.com/Ref/Bury/ieb14.htm
https://books.google.com/books?id=y...d6IHADQ&ved=0CDkQ6AEwBTgK#v=onepage&q=lombard invasion of italy&f=false
http://www.ectechnano.com/the-dark-...llustrated-italy-and-her-invaders-book-5.html

There is also:
Early Medieval Italy-Chris Wickam

I could go on for two pages. Do I have to go all the way back to Gibbons' Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire?
 
The Lombards may have been ruling Italy in the 6th century but it is a real possibility that they used disgruntled Gauls who were unhappy with the Roman occupation of their lands and forced military service and taxes.

The border with France and the border with Austria and perhaps Switzerland may have been where these mercenaries were originally from, passing into Italy ... and therefore they would have been a mix of European haplogroups, the majority of which would have had to have been U152.

We can speculate that a sizable amount of U152 already existed in Italy from c.1200BC and the Roman periods, but then more entered with the Lombards and little more with the Angevins.

The question this raises is one of social class and status. Was it an economic revolution, were the Lombards 'liberators' of the masses that lived in the outskirts. Farmers and peasants who joined the fight with a small elite force of mercenaries from Northwestern Italy and Southeastern France. Did Genoa become wealthy because of these expeditions? One thing is certain, it was not a German invasion of Italy ... it was probably more like the USA using the Kurds to establish economic control in Iraq.
 
The Lombards may have been ruling Italy in the 6th century but it is a real possibility that they used disgruntled Gauls who were unhappy with the Roman occupation of their lands and forced military service and taxes.

The border with France and the border with Austria and perhaps Switzerland may have been where these mercenaries were originally from, passing into Italy ... and therefore they would have been a mix of European haplogroups, the majority of which would have had to have been U152.

We can speculate that a sizable amount of U152 already existed in Italy from c.1200BC and the Roman periods, but then more entered with the Lombards and little more with the Angevins.

The question this raises is one of social class and status. Was it an economic revolution, were the Lombards 'liberators' of the masses that lived in the outskirts. Farmers and peasants who joined the fight with a small elite force of mercenaries from Northwestern Italy and Southeastern France. Did Genoa become wealthy because of these expeditions? One thing is certain, it was not a German invasion of Italy ... it was probably more like the USA using the Kurds to establish economic control in Iraq.

This is all unsubstantiated fantasy, and unworthy of debate. We don't make up history here.

Please see post #237 and read the articles and texts to which I have provided links. Then, if you wish, we can discuss the probable genetic impact on the Italian people.
 
For me is very logic that Latins could not mostly carry R1b-U152,since in Catania only 1 sample from 50 samples is R1b-U152.
Explain that please and I would believe that Latins were carrying mostly R1b-U152.
As for Lombards,is clear they come in Italy and settled at least in North East,since there is so much I1 there.
 

This thread has been viewed 236420 times.

Back
Top