PDA

View Full Version : Lombard DNA in Italy



Pages : [1] 2

Dorianfinder
04-09-11, 10:19
This quote from Taranis made me think whether we may have missed something more recent in Italy's history that could account for high R1b-U152 levels. How certain are we that the Lombards were R1b-U106, HG I?


... if you look at the distribution in France and the British Isles versus the Iberian penninsula. Why is there more U152 in Britain than in Iberia? How is this possible if it's from the Romans?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1b/Italy_under_Aistulf.gif/466px-Italy_under_Aistulf.gif
Lombard lands c.750-785

The Lombards could have carried more R1b-U152 than R1b-U106 if we consider for a moment their migration routes into Italy. I do not deny that there had already been a significant R1b-U152 presence in Italy before their arrival but the R1b-U152 homeland was on the Lombardic migratory route to Italy. What we find today in Northern Italy appears to correspond with a Lombard expansion with an almost bottle-neck on the Lombardy southern border where R1b-U152 frequencies are highest. This explains high R1b-U152 levels on the Sicilian north coast as it was a Lombard colony and resulted in turning Sicily into what later became an anti-papist stronghold with Swabian rulers and Lombard aristocracy.

The Lombards migrated along the following proposed route into Italy.
There is hardly any u-152 in scania and northern Germany. Besides how long did they take to migrate

The Lombards were part of the Suebi and towards the end of the ancient Roman empire, the Suebi and Alamanni brushed aside Roman defenses and occupied Alsace, and from there Bavaria and Switzerland. A pocket remained in Swabia in southwest Germany.

Alsace and Southwest Germany, together with Switzerland and Bavaria all have elevated R1b-U152 when compared to the surrounding region.

Ignore the Scandinavian origin, it is based on a legend, no historical source verifies Scania as Lombard homeland. Strabo and Tacitus mention the Lombards settled near the mouth of the Elbe suggesting a sea-faring culture near Scoringa.

The Codex Gothanus writes the Lombards were subjected by the Saxons around 300AD, but rose up against the Saxons with their king Agelmund. In the second half of the 4th century, the Lombards left their homes and embarked on their migration. The migration is first documented as having begun at Scoringa, not Scania as indicated on the above map.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5e/Lombard_Migration.jpg

Maybe the Roman migration of R1b-U152 is not the answer, Iberia and other Roman areas have more J and almost no R1b-U152.

Sile
04-09-11, 10:35
There is hardly any u-152 in scania and northern Germany. Besides how long did they take to migrate

Dorianfinder
04-09-11, 10:46
There is hardly any u-152 in scania and northern Germany. Besides how long did they take to migrate

The Lombards were part of the Suebi and towards the end of the ancient Roman empire, the Suebi and Alamanni brushed aside Roman defenses and occupied Alsace, and from there Bavaria and Switzerland. A pocket remained in Swabia in southwest Germany.

Alsace and Southwest Germany, together with Switzerland and Bavaria all have elevated R1b-U152 when compared to the surrounding region.

Sile
04-09-11, 11:06
your map only indicates the area won by victories of Liutprand over the Eastern -roman empire ( byzantium) and with these victories a setting up of duchies like spoleto and benevento etc etc.

What dna was in ombardia from when the celts thre out the etruscans in the 5th century BC until these lombard invasions, clearly , whatever was there must still be aroud in some form

Dorianfinder
04-09-11, 12:12
What dna was in Lombardia from when the celts threw out the etruscans in the 5th century BC until these lombard invasions, clearly , whatever was there must still be aroud in some form

Etruscan DNA was mostly J2, before the Lombards northern Italy would have had a similar South Italy admixture so J2, R1b-L23-, E-V13, G and I2 with more R1b-L23+ and I2.

The R1b-L23+ in Lombardy would not have been so heavy in R1b-U152 for several reasons. Firstly, the Gallic invasions of 390BC in addition to the Boii who made Bononia their capital, were routed out according to later Roman onslaughts.

The R1b-U152 in Italy and the Balkans was first introduced, albeit in small quantities relative to the better established haplogroups, from 1200BC and gradually increased with migratory waves in 800BC and the 4th and 3rd century invasions from the Volcae and Boii etc.

Taranis
04-09-11, 12:22
Etruscan DNA was mostly J2, before the Lombards northern Italy would have had a similar South Italy admixture so J2, R1b-L23-, E-V13, G and I2 with more R1b-L23+ and I2.

The R1b-L23+ in Lombardy would not have been so heavy in R1b-U152 for several reasons. Firstly, the Gallic invasions of 390BC in addition to the Boii who made Bononia their capital, were routed out according to later Roman onslaughts.

Actually, I would argue that the Etruscans were mostly J1, not J2, and that J2 is pre-Etruscan. There is a peak of J1 around Tuscany, which very much matches the Etruscans. I'm not sure about J2, in my opinion J2 is older (possibly a relic of the pre-Indo-European population of Italy). I also think it's pretty clear that J2 became a typical Roman marker later on, since it's distribution in much of Europe matches the extend of the Roman Empire.

Etrusco-romano
04-09-11, 12:28
The Lombards who came to Italy were a small elite, perhaps a population of 110,000, compared with a italian population who which ranged between 8 and 9 million habitants .
During the first centuries of domination, then, there was a very clear separation between the Romans and the Lombards, primarily for the different religions (Catholics and Arians) and secondly to Lombard law, even forbidding mixed marriages. Things have not changed for a long time, and the Lombards, who also had the exclusive preserve of the army, were reduced over the centuries until they disappeared almost completely. So it's difficolut to charge this population to any track genetics (at least not consistently).
Also carry a research made by the Anthropological Society of Paris, which analyzes the contamination Germanic in Friuli, the region hardest hit by the Lombard rule.

Les Ostrogoths et les Langobards, aggignataies d'un tiers des terres domaniales, n'avaient ni la voltè ni la possibilitè de se trasformer en colonisateurs. Ils faisainet travailler ces terres par leurs esclaves et par les paysan libres, transformeès en serfs ruraux, quand ils n'étainet pas attaches aux biens ecclesiastiques. La domination gotho-langobarde ne fut pas sans effet demographique pour la population illyrien (la popolazione nativa del Friuli viene considerata ancora Illirica), surtout dans la derniere periode, quand les Langobards tenaient de fortes garnison dans le Castrum Glemonae et dans le duchè de Forum Iulii pour la défense de la frontièere orientale dell'Austrasie langobarde. J'estime que les aborigenes (i Friulani) s'èlevaient alors a 70-80.000 individus sur un territorie d'environ 6.000 km2. A la fin du royaume langobard, le rapport, selon mon estimation, entre Frioulans et Barbares, etait 8-10 a 100, ce qui indique un taux de mélange de 6-7%- Sans doute l'hybridation a influencè les Friuulans, par exemple a l'egard de la haute stature ed du type blond de Livi.


The Ostrogoths and Lombards, aggignataies a third of public lands, had neither the V nor the opportunity to Trasforma as colonizers. Faisainet They work the land by slaves and free peasants, serfs, transformed into rural n'étainet when not attached to the church property. Domination-Gotho Lombards was not without effect for the demographic Illyrian population (the native population of Friuli is still considerate Illiric), especially in the last period, when the Lombards held strong garrison in the Castrum Glemonae and the Duchy of Forum Iuliia to defend the eastern frontièere dell'Austrasie Lombards. I believe that the aborigines (i Friulana) 70-80000 individuals at the time was on territories of about 6,000 km2. At the end of the kingdom Lombards, the report, in my estimation, between Friulians and Barbarians, a 8-10 was 100, indicating a mixing ratio of 6-7% - no doubt influenced the hybridization Friuulans by instance with regard to the tall blond ed type of Livi.

Dorianfinder
04-09-11, 12:31
The legend of the formation of Rome states that there were three groups to begin with:
1. Etruscans [definitely not a R1b-U152 people]
2. Latini [definitely not a R1b-U152 people]
3. Sabines [origins also show East Med. origins]

Some claim that the local Italian tribes took control of the Roman Empire, as improbable as it sounds, it still does not account for the levels of R1b-U152.

Etrusco-romano
04-09-11, 12:32
Actually, I would argue that the Etruscans were mostly J1, not J2, and that J2 is pre-Etruscan. There is a peak of J1 around Tuscany, which very much matches the Etruscans. I'm not sure about J2, in my opinion J2 is older (possibly a relic of the pre-Indo-European population of Italy). I also think it's pretty clear that J2 became a typical Roman marker later on, since it's distribution in much of Europe matches the extend of the Roman Empire.

How it's possibile that the J1 is etruscan? J1 it's typical of Semitic population, like Phoenicians, Arabs and Jews. And the Etruscans were certainly not a Semitic people, may be anatolic, but not semitic.

Etrusco-romano
04-09-11, 12:34
The legend of the formation of Rome states that there were three groups to begin with:
1. Etruscans [definitely not a R1b-U152 people]
2. Latini [definitely not a R1b-U152 people]
3. Sabines [origins also show East Med. origins]

Some claim that the local Italian tribes took control of the Roman Empire, as improbable as it sounds, it still does not account for the levels of R1b-U152.

Agree with the Etruscan, but who say to you:

1) The Latins where not U152

2) The Sabines come from East

Taranis
04-09-11, 12:44
How it's possibile that the J1 is etruscan? J1 it's typical of Semitic population, like Phoenicians, Arabs and Jews. And the Etruscans were certainly not a Semitic people.

J1 is not exclusively Semitic, neither is it the original "Semitic" marker. As discussed in this thread (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?26703-Definition-of-Haplogroup-J1), only the subclade J1c3d is actually associated with the Semitic peoples. The other subclades of J1 are quite common in the Levante, Anatolia and Caucasus.

From that perspective, it absolutely makes sense that the Etruscans were J1.

http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup-J1.gif

Dorianfinder
04-09-11, 12:51
The Lombards who came to Italy were a small elite, perhaps a population of 110,000, compared with a italian population who which ranged between 8 and 9 million habitants

Demographics of Italy:
1460 - 4 500 000
1675 - 12 500 000
1861 - 22 200 000
1901 - 33 000 000
1961 - 50 000 000
2010 - 60 500 000

Where do you get a population of 8 million in 6th century Italy?

The population of Italy before the Lombards was probably not more that between 400 000 and 600 000.

Dorianfinder
04-09-11, 13:02
Agree with the Etruscan, but who say to you:

1) The Latins where not U152

2) The Sabines come from East

The most likely route for the Italic migration (i.e. Latins) into Italy was from the Balkan peninsula along the Adriatic coast.[1][2][/URL][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latini#cite_note-6"] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latini#cite_note-5)

1. Britannica Latium
2. Cornell (1995) 44

The archaeological evidence shows a remarkable uniformity of culture in the peninsula during the period 1800-1200 BC - the so-called 'Appenine culture'. Pottery with much the same incised geometric designs is found throughout Italy, and the design of weapons and tools was also homogenous. During this period, it appears that Italy was a heavily wooded land with a sparse population.

Etrusco-romano
04-09-11, 13:22
Demographics of Italy:
1460 - 4 500 000
1675 - 12 500 000
1861 - 22 200 000
1901 - 33 000 000
1961 - 50 000 000
2010 - 60 500 000

Where do you get a population of 8 million in 6th century Italy?

The population of Italy before the Lombards was probably not more that between 400 000 and 600 000.


the Italian population during the Middle Ages was reduced because of famine and disease (Black Death), the 1400 whose the first time in population growth after the fall occurred after the eighth century AD. And I do not understand where you may have read that Italy had 600,000 inhabitants in the fifth century AD, if you said 2 or 3 million would have been strange but questionable, but 600,000is absurd.

The research La composition ethnique de la population italienne (Bulletins et Memoires de la Societe d'Anthropologie de Paris, Mario Cappieri) and the classical scholar Karl Julius Belock demographics are not of this opinion, to attest to the population between 5 and 9 variables million from the fourth century to the sixth century AD

Etrusco-romano
04-09-11, 13:25
The most likely route for the Italic migration (i.e. Latins) into Italy was from the Balkan peninsula along the Adriatic coast.[1][2][/URL][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latini#cite_note-6"] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latini#cite_note-5)

1. Britannica Latium
2. Cornell (1995) 44

The archaeological evidence shows a remarkable uniformity of culture in the peninsula during the period 1800-1200 BC - the so-called 'Appenine culture'. Pottery with much the same incised geometric designs is found throughout Italy, and the design of weapons and tools was also homogenous. During this period, it appears that Italy was a heavily wooded land with a sparse population.

Ok, ok, i misunderstood: thought you meant that only the Sabines came from the East, where for east it intends to Greece or Anatolia.

Dorianfinder
04-09-11, 13:32
Actually, I would argue that the Etruscans were mostly J1, not J2, and that J2 is pre-Etruscan. There is a peak of J1 around Tuscany, which very much matches the Etruscans. I'm not sure about J2, in my opinion J2 is older (possibly a relic of the pre-Indo-European population of Italy). I also think it's pretty clear that J2 became a typical Roman marker later on, since it's distribution in much of Europe matches the extend of the Roman Empire.

J2 as pre-Etruscan, I would say that pre-Etruscan is supposed to be ancestral Etruscan so we agree here. Concerning J1 I am not sure if it was a majority in any Italian population really and think the J1 distribution maps shades of green are misleading as the scale is small.

Ancient mt-DNA studies have been confirmed by studies comparing Tuscan men to DNA sequences with those from men in modern Turkey, northern Italy, the Greek island of Lemnos, the Italian islands of Sicily and Sardinia and the southern Balkans. They found that the genetic sequences of the Tuscan men varied significantly from those of men in surrounding regions in Italy, and that the men from Murlo and Volterra were the most closely related to men from Turkey. In Murlo in particular, one genetic variant is shared only by people from Turkey. The island of Lemnos and the Turkish man from Smyrna are in J1 desert. [/URL] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etruscan_origins#cite_note-21)[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etruscan_origins#cite_note-23"] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etruscan_origins#cite_note-23)

Etrusco-romano
04-09-11, 13:38
J2 as pre-Etruscan, I would say that pre-Etruscan is supposed to be ancestral Etruscan so we agree here. Concerning J1 I am not sure if it was a majority in any Italian population really and think the J1 distribution maps shades of green are misleading as the scale is small.

Ancient mt-DNA studies have been confirmed by studies comparing Tuscan men to DNA sequences with those from men in modern Turkey, northern Italy, the Greek island of Lemnos, the Italian islands of Sicily and Sardinia and the southern Balkans. They found that the genetic sequences of the Tuscan men varied significantly from those of men in surrounding regions in Italy, and that the men from Murlo and Volterra were the most closely related to men from Turkey. In Murlo in particular, one genetic variant is shared only by people from Turkey. The island of Lemnos and the Turkish man from Smyrna are in J1 desert. [/URL] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etruscan_origins#cite_note-21)[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etruscan_origins#cite_note-23"] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etruscan_origins#cite_note-23)

This is truth: i among others have also been in Murlo once, and it's beautiful to look at the elders of this little city and see in them the ancient Etruscans; but not all Tuscans have etruscan dna, more have romans dna becouse the roman colonization of Etruria whose really big. A strong Etruscan track in us Tuscan peoples is the language: the "Gorgias" of Tuscany, which is almost impossible for us to pronounce the "c" correctly; the Etruscans, in the Republican era, were mocked by the Romans for the same defect of language.

Dorianfinder
04-09-11, 13:53
the Italian population during the Middle Ages was reduced because of famine and disease (Black Death), the 1400 whose the first time in population growth after the fall occurred after the eighth century AD. And I do not understand where you may have read that Italy had 600,000 inhabitants in the fifth century AD, if you said 2 or 3 million would have been strange but questionable, but 600,000is absurd.

The research La composition ethnique de la population italienne (Bulletins et Memoires de la Societe d'Anthropologie de Paris, Mario Cappieri) and the classical scholar Karl Julius Belock demographics are not of this opinion, to attest to the population between 5 and 9 variables million from the fourth century to the sixth century AD

Rome was increasingly decentralized and suffered an exodus from Italy that after 320 years of decline culminated in the Roman population of Rome stabilizing at no more than 50 000 from 478AD. If you use basic statistical comparisons you will see that my figures are based on reasonable estimates. We are not talking about natural disasters and disease epidemics here so you are mistaken.

Dorianfinder
04-09-11, 14:01
This is truth: i among others have also been in Murlo once, and it's beautiful to look at the elders of this little city and see in them the ancient Etruscans; but not all Tuscans have etruscan dna, more have romans dna becouse the roman colonization of Etruria whose really big. A strong Etruscan track in us Tuscan peoples is the language: the "Gorgias" of Tuscany, which is almost impossible for us to pronounce the "c" correctly; the Etruscans, in the Republican era, were mocked by the Romans for the same defect of language.

Ancient mt-DNA testing of the ancient Etruscan (700BC) tombs indicated similarities to the Middle East and Anatolia when compared to South Italy. This suggests South Italy's Roman population and the ancient Etruscans developed along different spheres. There must have been specific Middle Eastern and Anatolian components not prominent in South Italy, Sicily and Sardinia for them to have placed the Etruscans closer to the Near East.

Etrusco-romano
04-09-11, 14:02
Rome was increasingly decentralized and suffered an exodus from Italy that after 320 years of decline culminated in the Roman population of Rome stabilizing at no more than 50 000 from 478AD. If you use basic statistical comparisons you will see that my figures are based on reasonable estimates. We are not talking about natural disasters and disease epidemics here so you are mistaken.

It 'true that Rome have 50,000 inhabitants (for a limited time) in this age, but there is not possibile that in Italy there were only 500,000 people, the numer downside I've heard (and perhaps too precise) is 6,200,000 people after the invasion of Gothic, but this numer is considered (even) too small.

According with the actualy common of Florence and the "Tuscany Region", only in Tuscany there were 380,000 persons in the fifth century AD, and the Lombards were settled more than 11,000

Dorianfinder
04-09-11, 14:38
Where did the 40-50% R1b-U152 distributed throughout Lombardy come from?

@ Leonardo

Who were the ancient Italics who carried R1b-U152?

Etrusco-romano
04-09-11, 14:44
Where did the 40-50% R1b-U152 distributed throughout Lombardy come from?

@ Leonardo

Who were the ancient Italics who carried R1b-U152?

The Italics were one family who spoke different dialects, and there were not big differences between them, so it is conceivable that all more or less, were carriers off U152.

The spread of U152 in Lombardy is almost certainly to be charged as a percentage (roughly) to 30% in the presence of the Gauls, and the huge amount to 70% of settlers sent from Rome to Lombardy.

Dorianfinder
04-09-11, 15:01
The Italics were one family who spoke different dialects, and there were not big differences between them, so it is conceivable that all more or less, were carriers off U152.

The spread of U152 in Lombardy is almost certainly to be charged as a percentage (roughly) to 30% in the presence of the Gauls, and the huge amount to 70% of settlers sent from Rome to Lombardy.

Can you name the Italic tribes who you claim to have all carried R1b-U152?

Etrusco-romano
04-09-11, 15:24
Can you name the Italic tribes who you claim to have all carried R1b-U152?

Osco-Umbrian, Picenum, Samnites (and all the tribes of the Abruzzo), Lucanians, Bruzi, Latins, Sabines (and all the Latium Italic tribes), Sicles and may be Venetics. Not everyone had the U152, but I think that a good proportion of them belong there.

Taranis
04-09-11, 16:32
J2 as pre-Etruscan, I would say that pre-Etruscan is supposed to be ancestral Etruscan so we agree here. Concerning J1 I am not sure if it was a majority in any Italian population really and think the J1 distribution maps shades of green are misleading as the scale is small.

No. By "pre-Etruscan" I meant "arrived before the Etruscans".

Specifically, the Etruscan language is unlikely to be originally native to Italy because of it's similarities with the Anatolian languages. Let me elaborate this: obviously Etruscan was a fundamentally non-Indo-European language, whereas the Anatolian family obviously was Indo-European, but the point is that there are some other features which suggest areal proximity towards the Anatolian languages.

Another issue is that there is no evidence for Etruscan being spoken outside of the area of Etruscan rule, in particular not in southern Italy.

To get back to the original thread topic:

In addition to R1b-U106, other Y-Haplogroups in Italy of likely Lombardic (or at least otherwise Germanic) origin are I1 and I2b:

I1
Northern Italy - 6%
Central Italy - 3%
Suthern Italy - 2.5%

I2b
Northern Italy - 2.5%
Central Italy - 5.0%
Southern Italy - 2.5%

There's also the possibility that some R1a in Italy might be Germanic, but given the distribution of R1a in Italy, it's likely most Italian R1a is either actually natively Italic (as in, from the Proto-Italic peoples, the most likely source) or Greek.

Dorianfinder
05-09-11, 01:28
No. By "pre-Etruscan" I meant "arrived before the Etruscans".

Specifically, the Etruscan language is unlikely to be originally native to Italy because of it's similarities with the Anatolian languages. Let me elaborate this: obviously Etruscan was a fundamentally non-Indo-European language, whereas the Anatolian family obviously was Indo-European, but the point is that there are some other features which suggest areal proximity towards the Anatolian languages.

Another issue is that there is no evidence for Etruscan being spoken outside of the area of Etruscan rule, in particular not in southern Italy.

To get back to the original thread topic:

In addition to R1b-U106, other Y-Haplogroups in Italy of likely Lombardic (or at least otherwise Germanic) origin are I1 and I2b:

I1
Northern Italy - 6%
Central Italy - 3%
Suthern Italy - 2.5%

I2b
Northern Italy - 2.5%
Central Italy - 5.0%
Southern Italy - 2.5%

There's also the possibility that some R1a in Italy might be Germanic, but given the distribution of R1a in Italy, it's likely most Italian R1a is either actually natively Italic (as in, from the Proto-Italic peoples, the most likely source) or Greek.

Concerning the Etruscan language, any correlates with other languages that may be linked to J1?

I2b distribution appears to have been introduced via the East Adriatic coast. Yes, I can definitely see Germanic origins for R1b-U106. I1 in Italy I believe has two main sources, the North Sicily I1 suggests Norse origins however most Italian I1 has a similar distribution to Greece.

I1 can be found throughout Greece at 2% suggesting that the even distribution throughout Italy also may be of an earlier introduction. Greek Macedonia has 7% I1 where Greek R1a is concentrated, these two haplogroups could be considered typical of the Greek Macedonians.

The R1a in Italy does appear to be in the Italo-Greek population with some recent Balkan Slavic R1a as well.

Taranis
05-09-11, 01:54
Concerning the Etruscan language, any correlates with other languages that may be linked to J1?

Not really. It would be helpful if there was a reliable map of just J1c3d alone. I think we would start to see a similar phenomenon as with R1b. For instance, I know that there are a lot of concentrations of J1c3d in southern Italy and especially Sicily, mirroring Arabic influence in Sicily.


I2b distribution appears to have been introduced via the East Adriatic coast. Yes, I can definitely see Germanic origins for R1b-U106. I1 in Italy I believe has two main sources, the North Sicily I1 suggests Norse origins however most Italian I1 has a similar distribution to Greece.

I1 can be found throughout Greece at 2% suggesting that the even distribution throughout Italy also may be of an earlier introduction. Greek Macedonia has 7% I1 where Greek R1a is concentrated, these two haplogroups could be considered typical of the Greek Macedonians.

Regarding I1, the most likely source for I1 is a single Mesolithic male lineage that by pure coincident survived the Neolithic/Chalcolithic in Scandinavia. As a result, I1 has become associated with the Germanic (and to a lesser degree, Finnic) peoples and expanded outwards with later migrations. However, I have my doubts that I1 couldn't have arrived in other parts of Europe before the migrations period, and it might already have been in Central Europe in small concentrations by the Bronze Age. The reason I came to think about this is because Germanic influence doesn't quite explain the concentrations of I1 we see for instance in Ireland, and I would argue that you can apply the same argument for Greece.


The R1a in Italy does appear to be in the Italo-Greek population with some recent Balkan Slavic R1a as well.

I just said that I don't exclude that some Italian R1a could be Germanic. Given the concentrations of R1a in northern Germany. I agree however that an Italic or Greek origin is more likely.

Sile
05-09-11, 10:34
Everyone seems to neglect the Raetians in all of this, what was there haplogroup, did they not have some influence in northern italy, did they not bring the gallic-celts into italy.
Question needs to be asked is - the mixture of people between the ligurians ( natives of Italy) and the gallic of the alps must have produced something in the 1000 years.

p312 is now quoted as being Italic instead of iberic. what is the fallout for this in regards to R1B?

Dorianfinder
05-09-11, 12:47
However, I have my doubts that I1 couldn't have arrived in other parts of Europe before the migrations period, and it might already have been in Central Europe in small concentrations by the Bronze Age. The reason I came to think about this is because Germanic influence doesn't quite explain the concentrations of I1 we see for instance in Ireland, and I would argue that you can apply the same argument for Greece.

I tend to agree with the age estimates by Dienekes regarding a possible Bronze Age introduction of I1 into the Southern Balkans. I believe Italy may share some of this Bronze Age I1.
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2008/07/how-y-str-variance-accumulates-comment.html


I just said that I don't exclude that some Italian R1a could be Germanic. Given the concentrations of R1a in northern Germany. I agree however that an Italic or Greek origin is more likely.

Two 1000 genome Z93+ samples of R1a were discovered in a Spaniard and a Tuscan man. This Z93+ is a new SNP that appears to have spread from the southeast region of the Kyrgyz plains. We need more European R1a tests for the Z93 marker though. Interestingly, Balkan R1a M458- samples have all been Z93- so far.

Dorianfinder
05-09-11, 12:51
Everyone seems to neglect the Raetians in all of this, what was there haplogroup, did they not have some influence in northern italy, did they not bring the gallic-celts into italy.
Question needs to be asked is - the mixture of people between the ligurians ( natives of Italy) and the gallic of the alps must have produced something in the 1000 years.

p312 is now quoted as being Italic instead of iberic. what is the fallout for this in regards to R1B?

The Raeti are definitely pre-Lombard. I have posted this in the Veneti thread but I will repeat myself as a courtesy to you. Archaeological evidence confirms early historical sources that state the Raeti were of Etruscan descent.

Etrusco-romano
05-09-11, 12:58
The frequency off I1 and I2b in Italy is not necessarily linked to a Germanic presence, many Sardinians belong to haplogroup I, and some of them, in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, were literally "bought" by the various Italian states for thickening populations of some depressed areas, is therefore likely that many of these stem from the Sardinians in Italy. Anyway I haplogroup is also common in earlier times to the coming of the Indo-Europeans, so it is very likely that only a small part of the frequency of I in Italy belongs to the Germans.

I should add that in Italy to find a Nordic characters is very difficult, the biondismo (blonde hair), although reasonably common, is associated with anthropological mediterranean, or whataver indo-european, characteristics (shape of the face, skin color etc. ..).

Taranis
05-09-11, 13:08
The frequency off I1 and I2b in Italy is not necessarily linked to a Germanic presence, many Sardinians belong to haplogroup I, and some of them, in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, were literally "bought" by the various Italian states for thickening populations of some depressed areas, is therefore likely that many of these stem from the Sardinians in Italy. Anyway I haplogroup is also common in earlier times to the coming of the Indo-Europeans, so it is very likely that only a small part of the frequency of I in Italy belongs to the Germans.

I should add that in Italy to find a Nordic characters is very difficult, the biondismo (blonde hair), although reasonably common, is associated with anthropological mediterranean, or whataver indo-european, characteristics (shape of the face, skin color etc. ..).

Yes, it is true that Sardinians have a lot of Haplogroup I. However, you are ignoring the specific subclade of Haplogroup I: Sardinian I is almost exclusively I2a1 (which is indeed very likely native, at least since Neolithic times), and not I1 or I2b. As far as I know, there is virtually no I1 or I2b in Sardinia.

I think it is absolutely certain that I1 and I2b in Italy is not of Sardinian origin. It is indeed most likely to be Germanic (or otherwise from Europe north of the Alps).

Sile
05-09-11, 13:13
Demographics of Italy:
1460 - 4 500 000
1675 - 12 500 000
1861 - 22 200 000
1901 - 33 000 000
1961 - 50 000 000
2010 - 60 500 000

Where do you get a population of 8 million in 6th century Italy?

The population of Italy before the Lombards was probably not more that between 400 000 and 600 000.

your numbers are in error, in 1450 there where 13 Million italians, second to france with 16 million, german/ies 11 million , Castile 4 million, aragon 1.5 million
duchy of Milan had 2.2 million
Rep. of venice had 2.1 Million ( 400,000) was colonies in the adriatic -dalmatians, venetians and greeks ) , so figure would be 1.7 million
K. of Nalpes 2.0 million
etc etc for others

Sile
05-09-11, 13:17
The Raeti are definitely pre-Lombard. I have posted this in the Veneti thread but I will repeat myself as a courtesy to you. Archaeological evidence confirms early historical sources that state the Raeti were of Etruscan descent.

where do you get this from?

If you are correct, then when did these raetians become gallic-celts?

Taranis
05-09-11, 13:26
where do you get this from?

If you are correct, then when did these raetians become gallic-celts?

The Raetians were not a unified ethnic group. Many of the Raetic tribes were clearly Celtic and Ligurian (from their tribal names, at least), but the language recorded in the "Raetian" inscriptions is similar to Etruscan. So, the situation is confusing. There is also the annecdote (I think by Livy or Pliny, but I'm not sure) that claims that the Raetians are the descendants of Etruscans that fled into the Alps when the Gauls invaded northern Italy.

Sile
05-09-11, 13:29
The Raeti are definitely pre-Lombard. I have posted this in the Veneti thread but I will repeat myself as a courtesy to you. Archaeological evidence confirms early historical sources that state the Raeti were of Etruscan descent.

Linguistics similarities does not represent the same race,

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=KWVQOcpVuZoC&pg=PA146&dq=raetians+etruscans&hl=en&ei=l7BkTvr8GebLmAWVtt23Cg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

Sile
05-09-11, 13:31
The Raetians were not a unified ethnic group. Many of the Raetic tribes were clearly Celtic and Ligurian (from their tribal names, at least), but the language recorded in the "Raetian" inscriptions is similar to Etruscan. So, the situation is confusing. There is also the annecdote (I think by Livy or Pliny, but I'm not sure) that claims that the Raetians are the descendants of Etruscans that fled into the Alps when the Gauls invaded northern Italy.

this story of livy only represents 5% of raetian tribes. The raetian in acient times dominated the alps from helvetica to trieste

Etrusco-romano
05-09-11, 14:28
your numbers are in error, in 1450 there where 13 Million italians, second to france with 16 million, german/ies 11 million , Castile 4 million, aragon 1.5 million
duchy of Milan had 2.2 million
Rep. of venice had 2.1 Million ( 400,000) was colonies in the adriatic -dalmatians, venetians and greeks ) , so figure would be 1.7 million
K. of Nalpes 2.0 million
etc etc for others

Good numbers, do you take these?

Dorianfinder
05-09-11, 14:51
@ Leonardo & Sile

Anybody is welcome to start a thread about the demographics of Italy in the History forum. It is not very relevant to this thread. Thank-you

@ Sile

The Raeti are not relevant as they were already well documented before the Lombard invasion of Italy. If they were Celtic then it would have been confirmed long ago as much is written about them as the Valley dwellers of the Veneto, who fled to the mountains when the Celts arrived.

Nobody claims the Raeti were unified or homogeneous ... they just don't appear to be R1b-U152.

Taranis
05-09-11, 14:55
I'd like to reiterate that unlike I2a1, which is very likely to be native to Italy, I1 and I2b are not, and are good candidates to have arrived with the Langobards, or are otherwise Germanic in origin.

Dorianfinder
05-09-11, 15:20
I'd like to reiterate that unlike I2a1, which is very likely to be native to Italy, I1 and I2b are not, and are good candidates to have arrived with the Langobards, or are otherwise Germanic in origin.

Italy has 2.5% I1 on average. If we consider that its distribution is evenly distributed across the Balkans, Italy and southern Europe, I would say that it is not a local distribution of Lombard origin.

The higher levels of I1 in Italy are found exclusively along the Northern coast of Sicily where the Norman invasions of Italy and later the Swabian dynasty in Italy had their colony. History tells us that the Lombard league were anti-Imperialist and had struck a deal with the papacy during this period. The Normans and Lombards did not see eye-to-eye and many people fled the intrusions of the Guelphs in Liguria and Piacenzo to settle in Lentini, Palermo and other parts of Sicily.

I believe a small Lombard contribution of I1 was deposited in the North however. This increase in I1 is however mirrored by an increase, quite significant if I may say so, of R1b-U152 in Italy.

Concerning I2b in Italy, it's distribution in the Balkans also appears to mirror Bronze Age I1. Suggesting an already established presence. The Germanic-Celtic theory regarding I2b does not stand on a strong footing when we glance at I2b frequencies throughout Europe.

On the other hand though, the I1 link to the Viking-Normans appears more likely.

To summarize:
I1 in Italy dates in part from the earliest inhabitants, to Bronze Age introductions of I1, to the Lombard invasion, and finally the Normans. All this for an average of not more than 2.5%.

I2b in Italy dates to the earliest inhabitants, to Bronze Age introductions of I2b and possibly some diffusion from Central Greece and the Aegean islands (ancient cultures).

Taranis
05-09-11, 15:26
Italy has 2.5% I1 on average. If we consider that its distribution is evenly distributed across the Balkans, Italy and southern Europe, I would say that it is not a local distribution of Lombard origin.

The higher levels of I1 in Italy are found exclusively along the Northern coast of Sicily where the Norman invasions of Italy and later the Swabian dynasty in Italy had their colony. History tells us that the Lombard league were anti-Imperialist and had struck a deal with the papacy during this period. The Normans and Lombards did not see eye-to-eye and many people fled the intrusions of the Guelphs in Liguria and Piacenzo to settle in Lentini, Palermo and other parts of Sicily.

Concerning I2b in Italy, it's distribution in the Balkans also appears to mirror I1. Suggesting an already established presence. The Germanic-Celtic theory regarding I2b does not stand on a strong footing when we glance at I2b frequencies throughout Europe.

On the other hand though, the I1 link to the Viking-Normans appears more likely.

Why should I1 be of Viking/Norman origin but not Lombard origin? After all, I1 is 6% in northern Italy.

Dorianfinder
05-09-11, 15:56
@ Taranis

I edited my post and added the following, sorry for that.


I believe a small Lombard contribution of I1 was deposited in the North however. This increase in I1 is however mirrored by an increase, quite significant if I may say so, of R1b-U152 in Italy.

Concerning I2b in Italy, it's distribution in the Balkans also appears to mirror Bronze Age I1. Suggesting an already established presence. The Germanic-Celtic theory regarding I2b does not stand on a strong footing when we glance at I2b frequencies throughout Europe.

On the other hand though, the I1 link to the Viking-Normans appears more likely.

To summarize:
I1 in Italy dates in part from the earliest inhabitants, to Bronze Age introductions of I1, to the Lombard invasion, and finally the Normans. All this for an average of not more than 2.5%.

I2b in Italy dates to the earliest inhabitants, to Bronze Age introductions of I2b and possibly some diffusion from Central Greece and the Aegean islands (ancient cultures).

Sile
06-09-11, 08:49
Good numbers, do you take these?

book is , the meditteraen by fernand Braudel , volumes 1 and 2

Dorianfinder
06-09-11, 13:14
book is , the meditteraen by fernand Braudel , volumes 1 and 2

The discussion about the population of Italy is here http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?26762-Italy-Demographics-throughout-history&p=379635#post379635

Sile
07-09-11, 09:56
The discussion about the population of Italy is here http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?26762-Italy-Demographics-throughout-history&p=379635#post379635

Thanks, next time do not raise the issue and I will not respond to your population comments

Dorianfinder
07-09-11, 16:02
I'd like to reiterate that unlike I2a1, which is very likely to be native to Italy, I1 and I2b are not, and are good candidates to have arrived with the Langobards, or are otherwise Germanic in origin.

Although I believe any I2a1 to have come during the 6th century as minor in relation to the U152 ... it is possible now that I think of it that the Gothic War 535-554 may have resulted in some I2a1 moving into Italy. The Byzantine infantry traveled along the Dalmatian coast before entering Italy which could have been a regular trade route of the Romans, bringing some typical Slavic I2a1b1 into Northeastern Italy.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5c/Erster_und_Zweiter_Gotenkrieg.png/548px-Erster_und_Zweiter_Gotenkrieg.png

Taranis
07-09-11, 16:13
Although I believe any I2a1 to have come during the 6th century as minor in relation to the U152 ... it is possible now that I think of it that the Gothic War 535-554 may have resulted in some I2a1 moving into Italy. The Byzantine infantry traveled along the Dalmatian coast before entering Italy which could have been a regular trade route of the Romans, bringing some typical Slavic I2a1b1 into Northeastern Italy.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5c/Erster_und_Zweiter_Gotenkrieg.png/548px-Erster_und_Zweiter_Gotenkrieg.png

Are you sure that you're not talking about I2a2? I was talking about I2a1 (the variety most abundant to Sardinia and the Basque country, which is also found in small concentrations in Italy as well as much of Western Europe).

Dorianfinder
07-09-11, 16:45
Are you sure that you're not talking about I2a2? I was talking about I2a1 (the variety most abundant to Sardinia and the Basque country, which is also found in small concentrations in Italy as well as much of Western Europe).

You are absolutely right, I meant I2a2 with regards to the South Slavs and I2a1b1 for Northeastern Italians. What is the connection between Basque I2a1 and Northeast Italian I2a1b1?

zanipolo
09-12-11, 10:05
You are absolutely right, I meant I2a2 with regards to the South Slavs and I2a1b1 for Northeastern Italians. What is the connection between Basque I2a1 and Northeast Italian I2a1b1?

KN noted in June 2011, that the extreme border of the basque I2a1 is Venice.


Basically, Italy as i was told has only a few "aboriginal" tribes. In the north the Ligurians, east central the Umbrians, the south are the Sabians and the sicels in sicily. All the rest are foreign

corinth
29-01-12, 02:55
There is hardly any u-152 in scania and northern Germany. Besides how long did they take to migrate

Lomardic homeland is EASTERN germanic, not north german.. The claim that they were scandinavian belies the fact that what we have of them is not a Northern Germanic language. The home origin we have for the Lombards is in the modern Carpathian Mountains,
and any legends about scandinavia or north germany are not provable beyond fables.

Given that the modern genetic centre of U-152 at its highest levels is the goth and later lombardic eastern germanic mass settlements of North Italy, Lombardy and Corsica, its not supportable to make a assumption that the Goth/Lombardic presence is not the reason why there is a hugely elevated presence of U-152 in these places in modern times.

Its not the only possible explanation, but its the one you really have to disprove with some ancient genetic dna results before you can eliminate it and move onto something else.

Christiaan
30-01-12, 09:01
The Langobardi (Lombards) were living along the river Elbe, this pinpoints them better then any other geographical placename. Linguistically its nearest surviving relative like Bavarian dialect, belongs to the western Germanic languages. So it seems its population core was not of Eastern Germanic origin at all. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/80/GermanenAD50.png

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elbgermanen (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/80/GermanenAD50.png)

zanipolo
30-01-12, 10:25
5455

Lombards belong to the VINDILI linguistic tribes ( Vandals ) and are East-Germanic

Christiaan
30-01-12, 15:41
Based on what article?

To be quiet honest your map you are using is a bit undecipherable. They were not living along the Vistula/Weichsel or Oder, like the Goths and Vandals in what is now Poland.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/Roman_Empire_125.png

They might have been on the move or came across some Vandals and Goths yes, but they were not of eastern Germanic origin when they were on the move from their western Germanic part of the world.
The map I posted earlier combines archaeological knowledge with historical accounts. The only thing we know for sure is that they lived along the Elbe and that they were closely related to the Suebi.

Even this article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lombardic_language) says it is close to Old Saxon, which is undoubtedly a western Germanic language.

Therefore they were speaking a Elbe Germanic/Irminones language. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elbe_Germanic

MOESAN
30-01-12, 22:55
I'm tempted to agree wirh Christiaan if it's proved that the Longobards cradle was in the Elbe area, then: eastern part of the west germanic ancient dialect - but I believe it's a little distorted seeing the modern germanic (tyrolian bavarian) languages of present day North Italy as a direct evolution of ancient longobardic - all the ancient dialect of germanic present in the South an evolution that could be due to a substrate, maybe a rhetic one - for vowels the S-W (alemanic) differ from the S-E but for consonnants they seam have followed the same way, irrespective of previous northern or north-eastern origins - the survival of germanic in North Italy seams more the result of Austria or switzerland proximity than a longobardic survival, from a linguistic and culturel point of view - it would be interesting having the thoughts of specialist of the old longobard (I'm not and so I can easily do misjudgments!)

Taranis
30-01-12, 23:12
Lombards belong to the VINDILI linguistic tribes ( Vandals ) and are East-Germanic

Strabo (book 7, cp. 1.3) Tacitus (cp. 40) and Ptolemy (book 2, cp. 10) place the Langobards amongst the Suebi, and the latter two mention them in the same context as the Semnones. However, what little is known of the Langobardic language shows, as others mentioned before, that it was indeed a (south-) west germanic language that fully executed the second germanic sound shift, and was thus related with Bavarian.

Vallicanus
30-01-12, 23:14
I'm tempted to agree wirh Christiaan if it's proved that the Longobards cradle was in the Elbe area, then: eastern part of the west germanic ancient dialect - but I believe it's a little distorted seeing the modern germanic (tyrolian bavarian) languages of present day North Italy as a direct evolution of ancient longobardic - all the ancient dialect of germanic present in the South an evolution that could be due to a substrate, maybe a rhetic one - for vowels the S-W (alemanic) differ from the S-E but for consonnants they seam have followed the same way, irrespective of previous northern or north-eastern origins - the survival of germanic in North Italy seams more the result of Austria or switzerland proximity than a longobardic survival, from a linguistic and culturel point of view - it would be interesting having the thoughts of specialist of the old longobard (I'm not and so I can easily do misjudgments!)

I agree.

The surviving traces of Longobard vocabulary are quite slight but we know hundreds of Longobard personal names.

The closest links are with Bavarian, a High German language.

zanipolo
31-01-12, 08:11
Strabo (book 7, cp. 1.3) Tacitus (cp. 40) and Ptolemy (book 2, cp. 10) place the Langobards amongst the Suebi, and the latter two mention them in the same context as the Semnones. However, what little is known of the Langobardic language shows, as others mentioned before, that it was indeed a (south-) west germanic language that fully executed the second germanic sound shift, and was thus related with Bavarian.

?
the only reference I found that the longobards are not east-germanic is in this wiki site
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Germanic_tribes

its says that tradionally they where east-germanic

Vindili branch below
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=xYM_AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA128&lpg=PA128&dq=vindili+germans&source=bl&ots=GCy0QBa8Lw&sig=CKmC-uC05JpEoZD-dbqBiQtuw6c&hl=en#v=onepage&q=vindili germans&f=false

But then then Longobards where originally from scandinavia and where called the VINILI
when they migrated to germany they changed name to Longobards.
They inhabited the Vindili linguistic area , but could in there migrations changed there linguistic traits to the swabian, bavarian, alemannic tree

Pliny the elder says also they where east-germanic from the VINDILI linguistic branch

See Christie, Neil. The Lombards: The Ancient Longobards

corinth
31-01-12, 09:17
The Langobardi (Lombards) were living along the river Elbe, this pinpoints them better then any other geographical placename. Linguistically its nearest surviving relative like Bavarian dialect, belongs to the western Germanic languages. So it seems its population core was not of Eastern Germanic origin at all.

By the time we have concrete coordinates for the tribal population called lombards/langobards who move later into the north Italian settlements, they are living in the Carpathian Mountains in what would be today eastern Romania and western Ukraine.
What additions or substitutions they ethnically consist of at this point, during which they spend about 40 years as vassals to Huns, is impossible to say.
All the gothic and/or eastern germanic populations at this point have cooperated and conflicted with western germanic tribal populations that they have allied and fought with, sometimes both with the same tribes.

Its fully possible (but also speculation) that prior to this interaction the dialect of the Goths or Lombards could be eastern gothic / eastern germanic- which is pitifully documented because it is a destroyed and dispersed population- and that Western Germanic is later adopted as they rise to a level of a european power, **at least in its written form**, since this western germanic prevails in their new 'adopted' western homeland in Europe. The written forms may also be entirely the product of LITERATE western germanic speakers in their employ.

The underlying issue though is that no one has any sample of Gothic-cultural Y-results or Lombardic DNA, and while I would not suggest a automatic assumption that U-152 being such a large anomaly in their eventual adopted home region is the product of these eastern germanic populations,

I also see no valid reason not to suggest that this is probably the best probability for its anomalous elevated genetic presence in these specific lombardic/gothic settlement areas, at this point in time.

Germanic and Celtic are cultural not (in all cases) genetic determinants. The early Eu18 (R1b) and Eu7 (All Hg 'I') Eu19 (R1a) are in a way playing havoc with current SNP distros and more recent discoveries because in the early era when these had not yet been seperated into their current regional distros,

a early, simplistic and inaccurate application of ;
Eu18/(R1b)= Celtic
and Eu7 (All Hg 'I')= Germanic (this then included all I2 and dinaric since they have not been SNP typed)
Eu19 (R1a)= Slavic

This was neat, look simple and basically could be viewed to fit fairly well. The problem was, it started collapsing under the weight of further advances in population genetics.

We have never to this day found even one lone example of I1 on the entire european continent from any ancient sample, while all other Y-dna have been found on the european continent- We do find medieval I1 on the Scandinavian Penninsula in the burial of the leader of the Svears who established control over what is now Sweden, and who were ethnically distinct from Geatish southern populations.

We find plentiful Eu19/R1a all the way west to modern france 1,500 years before the slavic migrations west we have any record of. We also find significant G2a and I2 all the way to coastal france along with some R1b during this period.

For all we really know at this point, I1 is actually a Svearish Hg adopted culturally into the Geatish lands they eventually over-powered, instead of "the" Germanic Hg.
We now know after typing R1b-s21 that many germans are in s21, at least in modern populations as opposed to the potential migrating I1 Svears along the north sea Hanseatic coastal regions.

We now know that R1b, R1a, I2, and G2 Y-dna can be found in Western European populations' ancient remains in the Bronze age, on the verge of these celtic and germanic cultures very beginnings or possibly even before they existed culturally.

All that said, with a anomaly that is so obvious in a small and precise region long in the settlement and control of a population to the degree that it actually left its tribal name on the area to this very day, I think that its scientific malpractice not to suggest that U-152 must be at least investigated as the result of gothic, lombardic, or other eastern germanics settling in the area.

NOT doing so because back in 1999 at the advent of Y-dna testing, when everyone in the entire R1b Hg were all described as 'celts', and no one had any sort of SNP's at all beyond M-269,
which led everyone at that time to make up their minds and it now requires a lot of revision of what were once firmly held beliefs that often affect peoples assumptions about their own Y-results,...

is not a valid or sound stand to oppose such a rational examination in this case.

zanipolo
31-01-12, 09:41
By the time we have concrete coordinates for the tribal population called lombards/langobards who move later into the north Italian settlements, they are living in the Carpathian Mountains in what would be today eastern Romania and western Ukraine.
What additions or substitutions they ethnically consist of at this point, during which they spend about 40 years as vassals to Huns, is impossible to say.
All the gothic and/or eastern germanic populations at this point have cooperated and conflicted with western germanic tribal populations that they have allied and fought with, sometimes both with the same tribes.

Its fully possible (but also speculation) that prior to this interaction the dialect of the Goths or Lombards could be eastern gothic / eastern germanic- which is pitifully documented because it is a destroyed and dispersed population- and that Western Germanic is later adopted as they rise to a level of a european power, **at least in its written form**, since this western germanic prevails in their new 'adopted' western homeland in Europe. The written forms may also be entirely the product of LITERATE western germanic speakers in their employ.

The underlying issue though is that no one has any sample of Gothic-cultural Y-results or Lombardic DNA, and while I would not suggest a automatic assumption that U-152 being such a large anomaly in their eventual adopted home region is the product of these eastern germanic populations,

I also see no valid reason not to suggest that this is probably the best probability for its anomalous elevated genetic presence in these specific lombardic/gothic settlement areas, at this point in time.

Germanic and Celtic are cultural not (in all cases) genetic determinants. The early Eu18 (R1b) and Eu7 (All Hg 'I') Eu19 (R1a) are in a way playing havoc with current SNP distros and more recent discoveries because in the early era when these had not yet been seperated into their current regional distros,

a early, simplistic and inaccurate application of ;
Eu18/(R1b)= Celtic
and Eu7 (All Hg 'I')= Germanic (this then included all I2 and dinaric since they have not been SNP typed)
Eu19 (R1a)= Slavic

This was neat, look simple and basically could be viewed to fit fairly well. The problem was, it started collapsing under the weight of further advances in population genetics.

We have never to this day found even one lone example of I1 on the entire european continent from any ancient sample, while all other Y-dna have been found on the european continent- We do find medieval I1 on the Scandinavian Penninsula in the burial of the leader of the Svears who established control over what is now Sweden, and who were ethnically distinct from Geatish southern populations.

We find plentiful Eu19/R1a all the way west to modern france 1,500 years before the slavic migrations west we have any record of. We also find significant G2a and I2 all the way to coastal france along with some R1b during this period.

For all we really know at this point, I1 is actually a Svearish Hg adopted culturally into the Geatish lands they eventually over-powered, instead of "the" Germanic Hg.
We now know after typing R1b-s21 that many germans are in s21, at least in modern populations as opposed to the potential migrating I1 Svears along the north sea Hanseatic coastal regions.

We now know that R1b, R1a, I2, and G2 Y-dna can be found in Western European populations' ancient remains in the Bronze age, on the verge of these celtic and germanic cultures very beginnings or possibly even before they existed culturally.

All that said, with a anomaly that is so obvious in a small and precise region long in the settlement and control of a population to the degree that it actually left its tribal name on the area to this very day, I think that its scientific malpractice not to suggest that U-152 must be at least investigated as the result of gothic, lombardic, or other eastern germanics settling in the area.

NOT doing so because back in 1999 at the advent of Y-dna testing, when everyone in the entire R1b Hg were all described as 'celts', and no one had any sort of SNP's at all beyond M-269,
which led everyone at that time to make up their minds and it now requires a lot of revision of what were once firmly held beliefs that often affect peoples assumptions about their own Y-results,...

is not a valid or sound stand to oppose such a rational examination in this case.

The only germanics I know that lived around the carpathain mountains where the Bastanae and these mountains where originally called Montes Bastanae, then later followed the goths which scholars say annexed the bastanae.

I do not beleive any marker belongs to any tribe/race/culture

Taranis
31-01-12, 11:00
?
the only reference I found that the longobards are not east-germanic is in this wiki site
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Germanic_tribes

its says that tradionally they where east-germanic

Vindili branch below
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=xYM_AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA128&lpg=PA128&dq=vindili+germans&source=bl&ots=GCy0QBa8Lw&sig=CKmC-uC05JpEoZD-dbqBiQtuw6c&hl=en#v=onepage&q=vindili germans&f=false

But then then Longobards where originally from scandinavia and where called the VINILI
when they migrated to germany they changed name to Longobards.
They inhabited the Vindili linguistic area , but could in there migrations changed there linguistic traits to the swabian, bavarian, alemannic tree

Pliny the elder says also they where east-germanic from the VINDILI linguistic branch

See Christie, Neil. The Lombards: The Ancient Longobards

There is absolutely no evidence, other than that book from 1839 that you cite above, which makes no particular case that they were East Germanic other than that the Langobards were arbitrarily assigned as East Germanic. I am pretty sure that Pliny does not describe them as "East Germanic". First off, the Romans didn't know this linguistic distinction (partially because the distinction between the various branches of Germanic did not exists yet). Pliny the Elder does not mention them at all in his natural history.

Only continental west Germanic languages executed the second germanic sound shift, and from what little evidence there is (Langobardic names) it fully executed this sound shift:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Germanic_sound_shift#Overview_table
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aripert_I
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liutprand,_King_of_the_Lombards

Note the development of Proto-Germanic *b to *p

zanipolo
31-01-12, 11:21
There is absolutely no evidence, other than that book from 1839 that you cite above, which makes no particular case that they were East Germanic other than that the Langobards were arbitrarily assigned as East Germanic. I am pretty sure that Pliny does not describe them as "East Germanic". First off, the Romans didn't know this linguistic distinction (partially because the distinction between the various branches of Germanic did not exists yet). Pliny the Elder does not mention them at all in his natural history.

Only continental west Germanic languages executed the second germanic sound shift, and from what little evidence there is (Langobardic names) it fully executed this sound shift:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Germanic_sound_shift#Overview_table
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aripert_I
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liutprand,_King_of_the_Lombards

Note the development of Proto-Germanic *b to *p

first off, there are hundreds of books which say different to what you say, secondly, the only proof you have is presented by wiki, a place where even non-scholars can present any data they want and has proven to have a high percentage of fantasy

present some evidence, i can place hundreds of books on what I claim

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=CbEhAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA381&lpg=PA381&dq=lombard+vinili&source=bl&ots=Alq8EqG3E9&sig=UBxfzOS2acgvp3sTQeTCaZ12UfI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=tbEnT4_bCO6jiAfC3ezYAg&ved=0CCIQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=lombard vinili&f=false


whats all your links got to do with when the longobards where in germany. ? I am saying the language they spoke there, not when they arrived in Italy
(http://books.google.com.au/books?id=CbEhAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA381&lpg=PA381&dq=lombard+vinili&source=bl&ots=Alq8EqG3E9&sig=UBxfzOS2acgvp3sTQeTCaZ12UfI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=tbEnT4_bCO6jiAfC3ezYAg&ved=0CCIQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=lombard vinili&f=false)

Taranis
31-01-12, 12:20
first off, there are hundreds of books which say different to what you say, secondly, the only proof you have is presented by wiki, a place where even non-scholars can present any data they want and has proven to have a high percentage of fantasy

I used Wikipedia because it's summarized quite well there, but I can provide other sources if you like. It appears rather pointless though if you won't believe how the names of Langobardic kings are preserved, and what the Second Germanic sound shift incorporates. Furthermore, I already gave you the sections in Tacitus' Germania and Ptolemy's Geography that regard the Langobardi (which both affiliate the Langobards with the Suebi), I can also give you the section of Pliny's Natural History where the Germanic tribes are mentioned (book 4, chapter 14), and where the Langobards are not mentioned, against your own claim.


present some evidence, i can place hundreds of books on what I claim

Yet it is all inconsistent with the available geographic and linguistic evidence on the Langobards.

Vallicanus
31-01-12, 14:21
Istvan Kiszely's "Anthropology of the Lombards" indicates that the most common single skull type in Longobard/Lombard graves in central Europe and Italy was a so-called "Nordic-CroMagnon" type common in North Germany but not in Scandinavia.

Most evidence points to a West Germanic origin akin to Bavarians and others.

Christiaan
31-01-12, 15:48
first off, there are hundreds of books which say different to what you say, secondly, the only proof you have is presented by wiki, a place where even non-scholars can present any data they want and has proven to have a high percentage of fantasy

present some evidence, i can place hundreds of books on what I claim

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=CbEhAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA381&lpg=PA381&dq=lombard+vinili&source=bl&ots=Alq8EqG3E9&sig=UBxfzOS2acgvp3sTQeTCaZ12UfI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=tbEnT4_bCO6jiAfC3ezYAg&ved=0CCIQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=lombard vinili&f=false


whats all your links got to do with when the longobards where in germany. ? I am saying the language they spoke there, not when they arrived in Italy
(http://books.google.com.au/books?id=CbEhAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA381&lpg=PA381&dq=lombard+vinili&source=bl&ots=Alq8EqG3E9&sig=UBxfzOS2acgvp3sTQeTCaZ12UfI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=tbEnT4_bCO6jiAfC3ezYAg&ved=0CCIQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=lombard vinili&f=false)

And yet you quote a book from 1841... ;) no offence zanipolo, but even Charles Darwin published his book the origin of species in 1859. Which should illustrate how drastically paradigms can change within only a few years. Nowadays linguists are using software to analyse and compare languages with one another. A technique which did not exist in 1841.

You should use Google scholar, which consists more up to date scientific literature.
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=20857242

quote:
"The partial undoing of the Shift presupposes a long history of dialect mixture in both cases. This supports the view that both High German (including the Ubian language of the Lower Rhineland) and Lombardic underwent the essential Shift, the affrication of the voiceless plosives, in their Herminonic homeland, the Lower Elbe region, before their dispersal in the early centuries of the Christian era."

Christiaan
31-01-12, 17:48
By the time we have concrete coordinates for the tribal population called lombards/langobards who move later into the north Italian settlements, they are living in the Carpathian Mountains in what would be today eastern Romania and western Ukraine.
What additions or substitutions they ethnically consist of at this point, during which they spend about 40 years as vassals to Huns, is impossible to say.
All the gothic and/or eastern germanic populations at this point have cooperated and conflicted with western germanic tribal populations that they have allied and fought with, sometimes both with the same tribes.

Its fully possible (but also speculation) that prior to this interaction the dialect of the Goths or Lombards could be eastern gothic / eastern germanic- which is pitifully documented because it is a destroyed and dispersed population- and that Western Germanic is later adopted as they rise to a level of a european power, **at least in its written form**, since this western germanic prevails in their new 'adopted' western homeland in Europe. The written forms may also be entirely the product of LITERATE western germanic speakers in their employ.

The underlying issue though is that no one has any sample of Gothic-cultural Y-results or Lombardic DNA, and while I would not suggest a automatic assumption that U-152 being such a large anomaly in their eventual adopted home region is the product of these eastern germanic populations,

I also see no valid reason not to suggest that this is probably the best probability for its anomalous elevated genetic presence in these specific lombardic/gothic settlement areas, at this point in time.

Germanic and Celtic are cultural not (in all cases) genetic determinants. The early Eu18 (R1b) and Eu7 (All Hg 'I') Eu19 (R1a) are in a way playing havoc with current SNP distros and more recent discoveries because in the early era when these had not yet been seperated into their current regional distros,

a early, simplistic and inaccurate application of ;
Eu18/(R1b)= Celtic
and Eu7 (All Hg 'I')= Germanic (this then included all I2 and dinaric since they have not been SNP typed)
Eu19 (R1a)= Slavic

This was neat, look simple and basically could be viewed to fit fairly well. The problem was, it started collapsing under the weight of further advances in population genetics.

We have never to this day found even one lone example of I1 on the entire european continent from any ancient sample, while all other Y-dna have been found on the european continent- We do find medieval I1 on the Scandinavian Penninsula in the burial of the leader of the Svears who established control over what is now Sweden, and who were ethnically distinct from Geatish southern populations.

We find plentiful Eu19/R1a all the way west to modern france 1,500 years before the slavic migrations west we have any record of. We also find significant G2a and I2 all the way to coastal france along with some R1b during this period.

For all we really know at this point, I1 is actually a Svearish Hg adopted culturally into the Geatish lands they eventually over-powered, instead of "the" Germanic Hg.
We now know after typing R1b-s21 that many germans are in s21, at least in modern populations as opposed to the potential migrating I1 Svears along the north sea Hanseatic coastal regions.

We now know that R1b, R1a, I2, and G2 Y-dna can be found in Western European populations' ancient remains in the Bronze age, on the verge of these celtic and germanic cultures very beginnings or possibly even before they existed culturally.

All that said, with a anomaly that is so obvious in a small and precise region long in the settlement and control of a population to the degree that it actually left its tribal name on the area to this very day, I think that its scientific malpractice not to suggest that U-152 must be at least investigated as the result of gothic, lombardic, or other eastern germanics settling in the area.

NOT doing so because back in 1999 at the advent of Y-dna testing, when everyone in the entire R1b Hg were all described as 'celts', and no one had any sort of SNP's at all beyond M-269,
which led everyone at that time to make up their minds and it now requires a lot of revision of what were once firmly held beliefs that often affect peoples assumptions about their own Y-results,...

is not a valid or sound stand to oppose such a rational examination in this case.

Well, I think you misunderstood my remark. Personally, I don't think that DNA is always specific enough to identify an ethnicity, especially those of Northern Europe. What I meant to say is that they cultural were probably western germanic, because they were surrounded by western germanic cultures when they lived in the lower Elbe region. By the way you should mention before they moved to the Carpathian Mountains (6th century AD) they lived in the lower Elbe region for some centuries while they left the Carpathians after only 100 years(~3/4 generations) or so. The question is did they change that much in that period culturally? They few remnants of that language do not reflect this shift to an eastern germanic language.

In addition the archaeological evidence in the carpatian mountains show that they were elbgermanic people.

corinth
01-02-12, 07:00
Well, I think you misunderstood my remark. Personally, I don't think that DNA is always specific enough to identify an ethnicity, especially those of Northern Europe. What I meant to say is that they cultural were probably western germanic, because they were surrounded by western germanic cultures when they lived in the lower Elbe region.

In most cases, except this actual historical scenario culminating in massive U-152 presence in "LOMBARDY", i would agree with you. In this case though, we have a known final settlement of this population, and it contains a y-dna anomaly within its settlement boundaries.
Other earlier or later population movements theoretically could be responsible for this U-152 elevated presence, but they are not supported in the historical record, and 'we have what we have', to investigate. Some tooth pulp from a few Lombardic attributable cultural burials in the Po Valley gives the answers.. its not that difficult to substantiate.

The majority of tribal period elbe-germanic lands and virtually all eastern germanic lands are completely repopulated today with Slavic or some other later arriving population, so even if we accept for the moment that references to Irmiones or Hermiones (elbe-ic germanic) by Pliny related to parts of later Lombardic tribal populations (very tenuous), it really does not get anyone any closer to any sort of genetic linkage, because these are all still destroyed, scattered populations surviving portions of which were subsumed into other groups father westward.

The 'Lombards' who eventually break free of the Huns in the east and take over northern italy are not in any accurate sense western germanic because they incorporate settlements of Goths who likely compose some part of their genetic component by the point they are settled in former gothic provinces in North Italy, and they had lived well into eastern europe for at a minimum several generations before migrating west.

In this period, every germanic population is fleeing west from asiatics to the safety of german-controlled lands, so it really takes some explanation as to why the Lombards would move into a area well-known to be plagued by endemic Hunnic violence to which the Lombards themselves fell victim, if they were not already in their home region.

Attempting to connect tenuous tribal affiliations and naming conventions based off of Roman interpretations by Historians who had themselves never even been to any of these places or tribal confederations is.. tenuous at best.


By the way you should mention before they moved to the Carpathian Mountains (6th century AD) they lived in the lower Elbe region for some centuries while they left the Carpathians after only 100 years(~3/4 generations) or so. The question is did they change that much in that period culturally? They few remnants of that language do not reflect this shift to an eastern germanic language.
In addition the archaeological evidence in the carpatian mountains show that they were elbgermanic people.

They would have been effectively slaves to a degree during this time, or at best a slave-military force.

We really do not have any Lombardic "language" to dissect, nor any spoken voice.
We have only names.. The fact that some names are spelled by a chronicler "Aribert" instead of "Aripert" is the totality of what we actually have to make the case for Lombardic german being western-germanic as opposed to eastern or nothern germanic.
That would be like asserting that should I name my son Pierre or Juan, that makes them affilated with the entire cultural continuity of a language sub-group from which those names derived.

Naming conventions can be affected by the scribe, who would be one of the very few literate persons at that time, (most people including rulers could not themselves read or write, so the person hired to do this need not himself be of the same Lombardic ancestry) and may come himself from a western germanic background.
Naming conventions and fads can also be adopted from those who now surround you as the more recent tribal immigrants, and adopted in the same way that Vulgar Latin became the lingua franca of the germanic Lombards in short order, since it is more flexible and traditional amongst literate scribes in their settlement areas who cannot write or read in Runic script.

As to the language family assignment all we can say is that no one has made a formal determination for Lombardic germans family group because we do not have a body of writing to dissect except in Latin. The scribe writing Lombardic names in Latin may be a local german from a western tribal population or a local italian, and both of these are likely to have more formally educated scribes than the Lombards coming out of the Carpathians.

corinth
01-02-12, 07:26
There is absolutely no evidence, other than that book from 1839 that you cite above, which makes no particular case that they were East Germanic other than that the Langobards were arbitrarily assigned as East Germanic. I am pretty sure that Pliny does not describe them as "East Germanic".

I think there are two different understandings of 'eastern germanic' as that term can be fairly appropriated.

One would be the germanic language family from which their verbage derives. This is entirely conjecture and its entirely based off of personal names that are transliterated through Latin-literate scribes..

You can cite that all you want, but there are several different levels at which this becomes easily corrupted that I have mentioned in previous posts, and without any body of writing ( let alone that which predates contact with later moving tribal populations) we can possibly say that the writer who transliterated some of these Lombardic names into vulgar Latin has some familiarity with western-germanic language structures.
The problem is, that scribe could himself very easily be of any population himself, and would be a educated elite not likely found amongst Lombardic populations at that time. Drawing conclusions about the general non-literate Lombardic populations based upon the inflections and transliterations of a elite scribe is probably going to lead to information about the background of that anonymous scribe,.. Lombardic population = not so much.

--------------------------

The second form of usage for western/eastern germanic would be as a reference to western-germanic as including lands that either are or recently were, germanic populated, into modern times,
while eastern-germanic would refer to lands that were historical germanic homelands in ancient times but are now destroyed, non-extant populations.

In the later sense, the elbic (partially destroyed) or eastern-germanic (totally destoyed) populations both meet a suitable colloquial usage of eastern germanic for the purposes of conversation.
Whatever or where-ever the Lombards started out in their geographical population origins, they ended up in the east, and moved into the Po Valley, thus separating any cultural ties to extant western germanic or fading eastern germanic populations.

Taranis
01-02-12, 08:32
I think there are two different understandings of 'eastern germanic' as that term can be fairly appropriated.

One would be the germanic language family from which their verbage derives. This is entirely conjecture and its entirely based off of personal names that are transliterated through Latin-literate scribes..

You can cite that all you want, but there are several different levels at which this becomes easily corrupted that I have mentioned in previous posts, and without any body of writing ( let alone that which predates contact with later moving tribal populations) we can possibly say that the writer who transliterated some of these Lombardic names into vulgar Latin has some familiarity with western-germanic language structures.

Sorry, you are completely wrong here regarding your assumption regarding "the writer". Why would writers (you're, after all, implying that it was just one, since they obviously appear in more than one source) consistently render names as if they have executed the second germanic sound shift? The only sensible explanation is that the second germanic sound shift indeed applied for the Langobardic language.

In any case, there is no evidence that the Langobardic language had any ties with the East Germanic languages (ie, Gothic and Crimean Gothic).


The problem is, that scribe could himself very easily be of any population himself, and would be a educated elite not likely found amongst Lombardic populations at that time. Drawing conclusions about the general non-literate Lombardic populations based upon the inflections and transliterations of a elite scribe is probably going to lead to information about the background of that anonymous scribe,.. Lombardic population = not so much.

--------------------------

It should be added that there is a couple of (ostensibly) Langobardic loanwords into Italian, such as the word "panca" (bench, compare with German "Bank").


The second form of usage for western/eastern germanic would be as a reference to western-germanic as including lands that either are or recently were, germanic populated, into modern times,
while eastern-germanic would refer to lands that were historical germanic homelands in ancient times but are now destroyed, non-extant populations.

In the later sense, the elbic (partially destroyed) or eastern-germanic (totally destoyed) populations both meet a suitable colloquial usage of eastern germanic for the purposes of conversation.
Whatever or where-ever the Lombards started out in their geographical population origins, they ended up in the east, and moved into the Po Valley, thus separating any cultural ties to extant western germanic or fading eastern germanic populations.

No, I disagree. This does not reflect their geographic position before the migration period (which would have been more central), and it does not reflect their linguistic position either (West Germanic).

zanipolo
01-02-12, 10:34
this issue on names to determine a language is silly.

take for example in the 16th century, the HRE was Carlo V in Spain, Charles V in English and Karl V in Austria ( his other kingdom ) , writers wrote what they assumed or converted the name to fit their area.

As for Lombardic Language - when it arrived in Italy it was not the language they departed with, it only lasted until the 10th century and was replaced with a north italian language ( merged) , 2 centuries later easter Lombardy started to convert to venetian and this lasted into the 19th century. When eastern lombardy was lost to venice, the lombardic term for its language was changed to be called Milanese langauge and that is what it called today.
The language was inferior and gave way to an italic form. IF it was western germanic it would ahve retained its prestige even more so as its northern neighbors where germanic

http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/6783/germanictribes.png (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/339/germanictribes.png/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us



they are part of the Vindili group, there eastern neighbours are the burgundians who are east-germanic , the aviones and carini, there northern neighbours are east-germanic.


(http://imageshack.us)

MOESAN
01-02-12, 10:47
The frequency off I1 and I2b in Italy is not necessarily linked to a Germanic presence, many Sardinians belong to haplogroup I, and some of them, in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, were literally "bought" by the various Italian states for thickening populations of some depressed areas, is therefore likely that many of these stem from the Sardinians in Italy. Anyway I haplogroup is also common in earlier times to the coming of the Indo-Europeans, so it is very likely that only a small part of the frequency of I in Italy belongs to the Germans.
I should add that in Italy to find a Nordic characters is very difficult, the biondismo (blonde hair), although reasonably common, is associated with anthropological mediterranean, or whataver indo-european, characteristics (shape of the face, skin color etc. ..).
Sorry?
blond hairs are not reasonably common in Italy: it runs from <1% in Sardigna to 16% in tyrolian region or in Dolomites, passing by 1-2% only in Sicily (and yet Sicily is not 100% homogenous neither for pigmentation not for metrics, nor for DNA) and South Italy, by 3-4% in Central Italy (with local variations), 5-6% in Emilia (Romagna darker), 8% in Piemonte, 10-11% in Lombardia, S-Veneto, 12-13% in Friul (an hazard? = the same % in the most of Slovenia)... so it begins to be a "common" thing only int the most northern parts of Italy (a 10% of blond phenotype corresponds roughly to a 30-35% of the principal pigmentation genes being 'blond' bearer (its to say: an important enough part of the population, contrary to the South case -
for the argument blond people don't show nordic features, I find that very funny: in a mixed population, genes are exchanged and a man heritate some traits from a source and other traits from other sources: but statistically, Northern Italy show people with nordic features (cranial and body well determined traits, too long to explain here) and other people with mixed features where nordic accretions can be found, all that among little more numerous people showing other features -what was written and I agree is that a little part of the population of the northern "blond" regions of Italy can be associated wirh (upon the 'nordic' source) an other blond phenotype, more bracycephalic and showing common traits with some German minoritary traits we can find also in Western Norway and other parts of the germanic world, features that was found in Europe south-west the Baltic Sea 5000/6000 years ago yet (and after that in a little proportion among Belgae Celts)
when a phenotype is overrun by more numerous other ones, it's rare finding a majority of the paradigm features in the same individual - it's evident -
for the Y-I in Italy, ireland and elsewhere it would be interesting to see what Nordtvedt say about the repartition of their subclades...
for the meaning of 'mediterranean' do keep in mind that 'nordic' is put into this classification by some scholars, giving way to misunderstandings

zanipolo
01-02-12, 10:55
i am looking for this lombardic discreation and could only find it came from one man Werner Betz

as some scholars believe, Lombardic was an East Germanic (http://www.enotes.com/topic/East_Germanic_languages) language and not part of the German language dialect continuum, it is possible that parallel shifts took place independently in German and Lombardic. However the extant words in Lombardic show clear relations to Bavarian (http://www.enotes.com/topic/Bavarian). Therefore Werner Betz and others prefer to treat Lombardic as an Old High German (http://www.enotes.com/topic/Old_High_German) dialect. There were close connections between Lombards and Proto-Bavarians (http://www.enotes.com/topic/Bavarians): The Lombards settled until 568 in 'Tullner Feld' (about 50 km west of Vienna); some Lombard (http://www.enotes.com/topic/Lombard) graves (excavated a few years ago when a new railway line was built) date after 568; it is evident that not all Lombards went to Italy in 568. The rest seem to have become part of the then newly formed Bavarian groups.

considering this article above , he noted there language when they lived with the bavarians near Vienna ( Bavarians )

GloomyGonzales
01-02-12, 17:58
Taking into account the history records, current distribution of haplogroups in Europe the East Germanic people were predominantly R1a-z280 and surely not U-152.

zanipolo
01-02-12, 20:57
Taking into account the history records, current distribution of haplogroups in Europe the East Germanic people were predominantly R1a-z280 and surely not U-152.

i would agree , and since the angles where the lombards north west neighbours ( on the map ) it would be essentail to find if the angles who migrated to england had the same R1a


Also, on the map which indicate purely germanic tribes, there are no bavarians ( or I do not know what they where originally called ). there are the Vindelicians who live east of Lake Venetic ( Lake Constance) .

The alemanni would be the old swabians and germanic swiss, or the narisci ?
Either way , the lombards would not have had U-152 but where given U-152 once arriving in Italy

Vallicanus
01-02-12, 21:46
Lombard personal names are similar to Bavarian (High German) names often ending in -PRAND or -PERT.
eg
Liutprand, Ansprand, Erchempert, Prand, Walprand, Ansoald, Alboin, Rodepert, Hildeprand, Rachipert, Ratchis,Auripert, Roppert, Adelpert, Cospert, Gundolprand, Faroald, Hildepert, Garipald, Eriprand and scores of others.

Nicoletta Onesti's study of personal names in Lombard Tuscany found 44 per cent Longobard (Germanic) names, 30 pc Latin, 22pc Longobard with the Latin -ULUS ending and 4 per cent hybrid (eg Flavipert).

zanipolo
01-02-12, 22:01
Lombard personal names are similar to Bavarian (High German) names often ending in -PRAND or -PERT.
eg
Liutprand, Ansprand, Erchempert, Prand, Walprand, Ansoald, Alboin, Rodepert, Hildeprand, Rachipert, Ratchis,Auripert, Roppert, Adelpert, Cospert, Gundolprand, Faroald, Hildepert, Garipald, Eriprand and scores of others.

Nicoletta Onesti's study of personal names in Lombard Tuscany found 44 per cent Longobard (Germanic) names, 30 pc Latin, 22pc Longobard with the Latin -ULUS ending and 4 per cent hybrid (eg Flavipert).

And there cities in Italy ended with 'engo' , while in germany it ended in 'ingen'.

What do we make of this word association?

considering bavarian evolved not much earlierthan the lombard migrations it does not indicate much to me.
Besides the term high-german does not indicate an elite status it only indicates german from the alps, that is mountainous german language.

who taught who these few high german words?

Vallicanus
01-02-12, 23:00
And there cities in Italy ended with 'engo' , while in germany it ended in 'ingen'.

What do we make of this word association?

considering bavarian evolved not much earlierthan the lombard migrations it does not indicate much to me.
Besides the term high-german does not indicate an elite status it only indicates german from the alps, that is mountainous german language.

who taught who these few high german words?

You do not understand.

Langobard personal names were not East Germanic like Gothic names but West Germanic like those of Bavarians.

Case closed.

zanipolo
02-02-12, 00:15
You do not understand.

Langobard personal names were not East Germanic like Gothic names but West Germanic like those of Bavarians.

Case closed.

not closed for me. Besides you are being silly

Some venetian merchants/citizens had the name for John as Zuan or Zaum ( which is spanish), yet the word in Venetian for John is Zane.
example, like Zuan Cabotto ( john cabot) , do we say these many venetians who used that name are spanish?

BTW for interest, Zuan Cabotto is what he signed in the english documents , not john cabot!

Until you show that the lombards language in germany is west-germanic then its all fantasy.
Lets take some logic, the lombards came from scandza sweden as the vanili , this scandza along with ostergotten, vastergotten and gotland are where the gothswent to came from in sweden. Is it not logical that they spoke similar tongue

Taranis
02-02-12, 01:01
not closed for me. Besides you are being silly

Some venetian merchants/citizens had the name for John as Zuan or Zaum ( which is spanish), yet the word in Venetian for John is Zane.
example, like Zuan Cabotto ( john cabot) , do we say these many venetians who used that name are spanish?

BTW for interest, Zuan Cabotto is what he signed in the english documents , not john cabot!

This is a fallacy, because no matter how a name is rendered, you don't change the name in accordance to Germanic sound laws. If the Langobardic names in the medieval were no adhereing to the second germanic sound shift, scholars likely would have noted that. What incentive would scholars of the time have had to render names according to the Second Germanic Sound Shift if the Langobardic language itself didn't apply to that? Occam's razor does not agree with your interpretation.


Until you show that the lombards language in germany is west-germanic then its all fantasy.

I've already provided evidence, both from Langobardic names and from modern Italic loanwords which are presumably of Langobardic origin. I admit that the evidence is scarce, but you seem to be willing to reject all available evidence that exists. At this point I would like to reiterate that there is no evidence that the Langobards spoke an East Germanic language.


Lets take some logic, the lombards came from scandza sweden as the vanili , this scandza along with ostergotten, vastergotten and gotland are where the gothswent to came from in sweden. Is it not logical that they spoke similar tongue

By your logic, the Langobards should have been speaking a North Germanic (ie, Scandinavian) language. But really, you are confusing the time frame here: the Langobards are attested by Strabo and Tacitus in the 1st century AD in northern Germany. At this time, the Germanic languages were not differenciated yet into the later branches: this occured only by the 4th century AD. Due to their location at that time, there's little other possibility than to assume that they spoke what would become West Germanic. So even if the Langobards migrated to the area of northern Germany from Scandinavia, by they time they did, they would have either spoken Proto-Germanic, or perhaps even Pre-Proto-Germanic.

Vallicanus
02-02-12, 01:10
not closed for me. Besides you are being silly

Some venetian merchants/citizens had the name for John as Zuan or Zaum ( which is spanish), yet the word in Venetian for John is Zane.
example, like Zuan Cabotto ( john cabot) , do we say these many venetians who used that name are spanish?

BTW for interest, Zuan Cabotto is what he signed in the english documents , not john cabot!

Until you show that the lombards language in germany is west-germanic then its all fantasy.
Lets take some logic, the lombards came from scandza sweden as the vanili , this scandza along with ostergotten, vastergotten and gotland are where the gothswent to came from in sweden. Is it not logical that they spoke similar tongue

Is this your proof?

The Longobards had West Germanic personal names so they must have belonged to that language group.

The Goths had East Germanic personal names as they spoke East Germanic.

It's simple enough, surely?

zanipolo
02-02-12, 02:58
This is a fallacy, because no matter how a name is rendered, you don't change the name in accordance to Germanic sound laws. If the Langobardic names in the medieval were no adhereing to the second germanic sound shift, scholars likely would have noted that. What incentive would scholars of the time have had to render names according to the Second Germanic Sound Shift if the Langobardic language itself didn't apply to that? Occam's razor does not agree with your interpretation.
there is no proof if it even existed in italy as west germanic except for plcenames and some personnel names. there is not even detailed evidence on when it disappeared, ...some say 7th century , some 10th century



I've already provided evidence, both from Langobardic names and from modern Italic loanwords which are presumably of Langobardic origin. I admit that the evidence is scarce, but you seem to be willing to reject all available evidence that exists. At this point I would like to reiterate that there is no evidence that the Langobards spoke an East Germanic language.

presumably ! well, the only evidence was of wertz and a few others who only gathered info around Austria , which as I asked before , who taught who high german, the bavarians to the lombards or the lombards to the bavarians
granted , there is no evidence of east-germanic either, but there neighbours except for the westernly ones , where all noted as east-germanic language


By your logic, the Langobards should have been speaking a North Germanic (ie, Scandinavian) language. But really, you are confusing the time frame here: the Langobards are attested by Strabo and Tacitus in the 1st century AD in northern Germany. At this time, the Germanic languages were not differenciated yet into the later branches: this occured only by the 4th century AD. Due to their location at that time, there's little other possibility than to assume that they spoke what would become West Germanic. So even if the Langobards migrated to the area of northern Germany from Scandinavia, by they time they did, they would have either spoken Proto-Germanic, or perhaps even Pre-Proto-Germanic.

so you are defining east-germanic only between the oder and vistula,......you dont think there was any between the elbe and oder , like the carini tribe as n example.

is north german = west-germanic?

what about the frisian areas 9 freisa, ostfriesia, oldenburg, holstein west are they not west-germanic?. are they similar to the longobard?

zanipolo
02-02-12, 03:02
Is this your proof?

The Longobards had West Germanic personal names so they must have belonged to that language group.

The Goths had East Germanic personal names as they spoke East Germanic.

It's simple enough, surely?

i thought the discussion was closed for you?

zanipolo
02-02-12, 03:38
ok , i found this side in which various old german languages are heard been spoken

http://foreignlanguageexpertise.com/videos.html

old-high german is there as well as ...maybe all

The guy says there are 8 dialects of high german and noted that lombardic is classified as elbe-germanic ( unsure if branch of high german )

this link is August 2011

corinth
02-02-12, 04:45
Sorry, you are completely wrong here regarding your assumption regarding "the writer". Why would writers (you're, after all, implying that it was just one, since they obviously appear in more than one source) consistently render names as if they have executed the second germanic sound shift? The only sensible explanation is that the second germanic sound shift indeed applied for the Langobardic language.
In any case, there is no evidence that the Langobardic language had any ties with the East Germanic languages (ie, Gothic and Crimean Gothic).

Frankly there are only a couple of documents from this era in Latin (historia langobardorum) which transliterates Lombardic names, and these are probably the works of scribes trained in Western Europe who are most likely not themselves Lombards - How they transliterate (through multiple languages) a names spelling is not in any way convincing evidence of anything, which is why no scholar has done more than suggest at what this hints at, since it proves zero.
These people and whoever they brought back with them from the Carpathians, or whatever they consisted of genetically after coming back from the Carpathians had interchange with western Germanic tribes and could adopt their naming conventions wholesale, before adopting vulgar latin wholesale, which we also know they did.

I make NO assumptions.. only theories that I do not invest anything certain in, as pertains to ancillary minutiae. The language and tribal attributions from Pliny the elder etc.. -who never left the Mediterranean in his life- dont do anything to my arguments.. since my argument is NOT dependent on them.. YOUR ARGUMENT is dependent on these things, and not successfully so.

My argument is based exclusively on hard genetic evidence in the modern descendants of the populations of the eastern germanic and elbic germanic populations in their region of settlement.

To overcome these actual scientific facts, I am met with a flurry of questionable wikipedia-derived citations about random historical or linguistic musings that have no real impact of proving anything, except derailing the actual facts that cannot be impeached into a ancient tribal debate that is a matter of opinion and allows the proponent to continue ignoring the actual facts he cannot otherwise impeach.




It should be added that there is a couple of (ostensibly) Langobardic loanwords into Italian, such as the word "panca" (bench, compare with German "Bank").
No, I disagree. This does not reflect their geographic position before the migration period (which would have been more central), and it does not reflect their linguistic position either (West Germanic).

There are loan words of every language in every other language it has had contact with or is neighbour of. The DNA evidence is that the largest concentrated presence of U-152 / s-28 on planet earth, with no other challenger,
is unquestionably in the settlement lands of the Lombardic and Gothic populations within the Po Valley. THAT is the issue. If you can prove that near majority genetic component in this lone region is not a legacy of these destroyed populations, then do it. It you cannot, then all the 'loanworks' and tribal theory does not save you.

corinth
02-02-12, 04:55
Taking into account the history records, current distribution of haplogroups in Europe the East Germanic people were predominantly R1a-z280 and surely not U-152.

Besides the fact that we have knowledge these areas of 'historical record' were re-populated by slavic tribes, that slavic males are majority R1a, and that other known germanic ancestral Y-line populations are not R1a (excepting some sorbs, prussians etc.. who were certainly germanicized)
there is no basis I can see for concluding really ANY of the migrations period elbe or eastern germanic tribes were or contained any R1a y-dna

The largest reason for this is, these populations became folded into Gaulish/Frankish, Western Germanic and North/Central Italian populations in very significant numbers, and R1a is very rare to the point of being statistically negligible in ALL of these populations today- Thus, it would be almost impossible for the Goths, Lombards etc.. to have brought R1a in their Y-dna on any scale, and to not have passed it on into modern successor populations they became a part of.

The R1a in the east today, came from incoming Slavic tribes in the vast majority of cases, and had nothing to do with the pre-Hunnic Germanic tribes.

Vallicanus
02-02-12, 10:38
Surely you know that the R1b-U106 associated with Anglo-Saxons and Lombards is greatly outnumbered by a more ancient R1b-U-152 in the former Longobard-ruled lands in northern Italy and Tuscany.

Maciamo's work on this site makes that clear.

GloomyGonzales
02-02-12, 11:07
Besides the fact that we have knowledge these areas of 'historical record' were re-populated by slavic tribes, that slavic males are majority R1a, and that other known germanic ancestral Y-line populations are not R1a (excepting some sorbs, prussians etc.. who were certainly germanicized)
there is no basis I can see for concluding really ANY of the migrations period elbe or eastern germanic tribes were or contained any R1a y-dna


It looks like you still live in myth that all R1a in Europe means Slavic. Now we have enough data to trace down migrations of R1a people in Europe and make conclusions which R1a clades took part in resettlements in migration period and as well we can determine clades of some East Germanic tribes. Some conclusions made from analysis for R1a clades distributions in Europe:

1. Authentic Slavic R1a clades – M458 (L260 and L260-)
2. East Germanic R1a clades – Z280 (not all)
3. Baltic R1a clades – Z280 (Z92)
4. There was no repopulation of East Germanic territories there was migration of Slavic tribes R1a-M458 in these territories and assimilation of East Germanic and Baltic tribes R1a-Z280 by Slavic R1a-M458 tribes.
5. Goths did not migrate from Scandinavia they were local East Germanic people and they were predominantly R1a-Z280.

corinth
02-02-12, 23:11
It looks like you still live in myth that all R1a in Europe means Slavic. Now we have enough data to trace down migrations of R1a people in Europe and make conclusions which R1a clades took part in resettlements in migration period and as well we can determine clades of some East Germanic tribes. Some conclusions made from analysis for R1a clades distributions in Europe:

1. Authentic Slavic R1a clades – M458 (L260 and L260-)
2. East Germanic R1a clades – Z280 (not all)
3. Baltic R1a clades – Z280 (Z92)
4. There was no repopulation of East Germanic territories there was migration of Slavic tribes R1a-M458 in these territories and assimilation of East Germanic and Baltic tribes R1a-Z280 by Slavic R1a-M458 tribes.
5. Goths did not migrate from Scandinavia they were local East Germanic people and they were predominantly R1a-Z280.

Well, the large hole in the bucket of your argument is what you did NOT address from my previous post, which you are well aware of. That 'problem' is, in much of western europe R1a is extremely scarce, and it is functionally absent if you discount the Svearish-interbred Norwegians and Swedes..

Gothic and eastern Germanic populations were a very large component that enters into the Western Euro gene pool as a result of the migration period, and given the large number that make up a part in continuity within the western euro gene pool till today of,
in particular the North Italian, French/Frankish, and west/south-west Germanic populations, in ALL of which R1a of any form is very unusual-

It is pretty safe to rule out that R1a was a component of genetic eastern germanics.

You are working backwards, with the result that you want and then trying to find a pathway to explain and support the result that you want while ignoring obviously fatal components in the argument you are constructing.

I do not doubt that some localized sub-variants of M458 exist and SNP can be detected in europid populations, other than Slavic-cultural/linguistic populations. Obviously the Tocharians for instance (were) a far eastern Europid-phenotype steppe population that does not appear in any way culturally slavic, but is R1a in its male genetic composition, and we have the Y-dna from ancient dna and current descendants in the region to prove it.

In the case of the Po Valley germanic settlements, the desire on the part of those who are trying to impose of version of events that meet their personal liking are denying to modern genetic results of the majority as any relation to the historical settlements, AS WELL AS attempting to insert impossible outcomes (R1a= goths/lombards) that cannot be justified given the y-data from these regions.

corinth
02-02-12, 23:45
Surely you know that the R1b-U106 associated with Anglo-Saxons and Lombards is greatly outnumbered by a more ancient R1b-U-152 in the former Longobard-ruled lands in northern Italy and Tuscany.

Maciamo's work on this site makes that clear.

I dont think anyone can in any way associate U106 with the Lombards beyond a simple guess. or a assumption.

The ONLY reason we can associate U106/s21 with anglo-saxon migrations in the UK is that it composes a large part of the local populations descendants into CURRENT modern times,
while surrounding isles/bythonic peoples are virtually absent R1b-s21 in their populations except where historical introgression or intermixture permits such low-level exchange of s21.

The exact same argument exists in the Po Valley germanic settlements, which consists of not only Lombards but other eastern Gothic populations, destroyed gepid populations, and other east germanic tribal residue that is coming in from the collapsing east to their new homeland in the Po Valley.

The modern descendants of these populations (like the large anomaly of R1b-s21 in saxon/jute/angle english populations) have a large genetic anomaly with U-152 being at it highest point in any human population extant. The original sources of these populations are long since migrated, over-run, or destroyed, and they are condensed into the Po Valley settlements.

The U-152 has bleed-over into surrounding areas (swiss for instance), but in areas farther from the eastern germanic settlements in the Po Valley, you only find (at the very most most) one-fifth the male populations in U-152, at best, instead of one out of two males being U-152 within the Po Valley settlement area.
This does not seem to confirm a expansion OUT OF the earlier celtic/la tene genetic presence, but actually seems to show a intrusion INTO the alpine populations in proximity to the Po Valley eastern Germanic settlements.

There is a strong case for U-106 in the UK being a legacy of anglo-saxons in particular, but trying to then use this to substantiate that every Germanic tribal population (including destroyed eastern germanics that we have no way to test directly from living populations) is marked by either hg I1 or by R1b-s21/u106 is where you are no longer in the realm of fact, but have moved to personal fancy that is unsupported by any ancient DNA results or data.

As to Maciamo's interpretations, he is like most of us focused on that which is most close to home with him. As a resident of Belgium, his focus in my guess was on seeing and identifying a peculiar 'Belgic' type of Y-dna marker.

Where I would differ with Maciamo's interpretations is that I can very easily explain the low-levels of U-152 also being found in Belgium and the Low countries far more logically as Goth components folded into the Franks and then later Lotharingian populations in this very area at low levels/percentages,
than I can explain this SNP by relating it to the once dominant 'Belgic' tribal population as seems to be Maciamo's theory. If this was a legacy of Belgic populations, why is it vastly, vastly outstripped by every other form of R1b within its own tidy region, and why is it that the only localities of dominance for this particular SNP in the Po Valley have no relation in any form to Belgic tribes.

For the dominant U-152 in the Po Valley be Celtic, let alone 'Belgic', one must go back through a millenia of celtic populations in this area being mass-murdered, enslaved, pursued and captured as far as the Alps, sold in chains by the tens of thousands.. starved in famines, being subjected to Romans, Byzantines, Avars, Huns, and then Eastern Gothics eastern Germanic tribes.. and still be a vast majority over the final mass population resettlement of the Po Valley who we know came in vast numbers..

This is simply not logical.

zanipolo
03-02-12, 06:53
as per link below, it is stated that venetic have a lot of Old high german words. Since the venetic people resided in NE italy from 1025BC to 60BC before being assimilated into Roman life and there language only is written from 600BC to 100BC, then the logic that Lombards brought old high german to Italy is a fallacy.
The truth is that historians talk about lombard and Old high german once they arrived in Italy .....Because they learnt it in Italy.

The venetic , bordering the alenanic people in Lacus venetus could have learnt it from them...but still its 600 years earlier than when the lombards arrived in Italy

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=98B-ZB_7VYQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=the+foundations+of+roman+italy&hl=en&sa=X&ei=yWYrT7yKEuP0mAXcquz9Dw&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=venetic&f=false

zanipolo
03-02-12, 06:55
It looks like you still live in myth that all R1a in Europe means Slavic. Now we have enough data to trace down migrations of R1a people in Europe and make conclusions which R1a clades took part in resettlements in migration period and as well we can determine clades of some East Germanic tribes. Some conclusions made from analysis for R1a clades distributions in Europe:

1. Authentic Slavic R1a clades – M458 (L260 and L260-)
2. East Germanic R1a clades – Z280 (not all)
3. Baltic R1a clades – Z280 (Z92)
4. There was no repopulation of East Germanic territories there was migration of Slavic tribes R1a-M458 in these territories and assimilation of East Germanic and Baltic tribes R1a-Z280 by Slavic R1a-M458 tribes.
5. Goths did not migrate from Scandinavia they were local East Germanic people and they were predominantly R1a-Z280.

I agree except for 5...the goths came from east germany , then migrated to sweden and gotland, then went to the vistula delta and then the black sea etc etc .....so I expect them to also have Haplo I

zanipolo
03-02-12, 06:57
I dont think anyone can in any way associate U106 with the Lombards beyond a simple guess. or a assumption.

The ONLY reason we can associate U106/s21 with anglo-saxon migrations in the UK is that it composes a large part of the local populations descendants into CURRENT modern times,
while surrounding isles/bythonic peoples are virtually absent R1b-s21 in their populations except where historical introgression or intermixture permits such low-level exchange of s21.

The exact same argument exists in the Po Valley germanic settlements, which consists of not only Lombards but other eastern Gothic populations, destroyed gepid populations, and other east germanic tribal residue that is coming in from the collapsing east to their new homeland in the Po Valley.

The modern descendants of these populations (like the large anomaly of R1b-s21 in saxon/jute/angle english populations) have a large genetic anomaly with U-152 being at it highest point in any human population extant. The original sources of these populations are long since migrated, over-run, or destroyed, and they are condensed into the Po Valley settlements.

The U-152 has bleed-over into surrounding areas (swiss for instance), but in areas farther from the eastern germanic settlements in the Po Valley, you only find (at the very most most) one-fifth the male populations in U-152, at best, instead of one out of two males being U-152 within the Po Valley settlement area.
This does not seem to confirm a expansion OUT OF the earlier celtic/la tene genetic presence, but actually seems to show a intrusion INTO the alpine populations in proximity to the Po Valley eastern Germanic settlements.

There is a strong case for U-106 in the UK being a legacy of anglo-saxons in particular, but trying to then use this to substantiate that every Germanic tribal population (including destroyed eastern germanics that we have no way to test directly from living populations) is marked by either hg I1 or by R1b-s21/u106 is where you are no longer in the realm of fact, but have moved to personal fancy that is unsupported by any ancient DNA results or data.

As to Maciamo's interpretations, he is like most of us focused on that which is most close to home with him. As a resident of Belgium, his focus in my guess was on seeing and identifying a peculiar 'Belgic' type of Y-dna marker.

Where I would differ with Maciamo's interpretations is that I can very easily explain the low-levels of U-152 also being found in Belgium and the Low countries far more logically as Goth components folded into the Franks and then later Lotharingian populations in this very area at low levels/percentages,
than I can explain this SNP by relating it to the once dominant 'Belgic' tribal population as seems to be Maciamo's theory. If this was a legacy of Belgic populations, why is it vastly, vastly outstripped by every other form of R1b within its own tidy region, and why is it that the only localities of dominance for this particular SNP in the Po Valley have no relation in any form to Belgic tribes.

For the dominant U-152 in the Po Valley be Celtic, let alone 'Belgic', one must go back through a millenia of celtic populations in this area being mass-murdered, enslaved, pursued and captured as far as the Alps, sold in chains by the tens of thousands.. starved in famines, being subjected to Romans, Byzantines, Avars, Huns, and then Eastern Gothics eastern Germanic tribes.. and still be a vast majority over the final mass population resettlement of the Po Valley who we know came in vast numbers..

This is simply not logical.

i believe U-152 was a ligurian/helvetic with some gallic mix , it was not germanic at the start

Vallicanus
03-02-12, 10:33
as per link below, it is stated that venetic have a lot of Old high german words. Since the venetic people resided in NE italy from 1025BC to 60BC before being assimilated into Roman life and there language only is written from 600BC to 100BC, then the logic that Lombards brought old high german to Italy is a fallacy.
The truth is that historians talk about lombard and Old high german once they arrived in Italy .....Because they learnt it in Italy.

The venetic , bordering the alenanic people in Lacus venetus could have learnt it from them...but still its 600 years earlier than when the lombards arrived in Italy

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=98B-ZB_7VYQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=the+foundations+of+roman+italy&hl=en&sa=X&ei=yWYrT7yKEuP0mAXcquz9Dw&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=venetic&f=false

Ancient Venetic and medieval High German come from 2 different time frames and 2 different branches of IE languages so this view is erroneous.

Vallicanus
03-02-12, 10:43
The modern descendants of these populations (like the large anomaly of R1b-s21 in saxon/jute/angle english populations) have a For the dominant U-152 in the Po Valley be Celtic, let alone 'Belgic', one must go back through a millenia of celtic populations in this area being mass-murdered, enslaved, pursued and captured as far as the Alps, sold in chains by the tens of thousands.. starved in famines, being subjected to Romans, Byzantines, Avars, Huns, and then Eastern Gothics eastern Germanic tribes.. and still be a vast majority over the final mass population resettlement of the Po Valley who we know came in vast numbers..

This is simply not logical.

I hope you are not suggesting that R-152 in the Po valley comes from Germanic invaders and even East Germanic invaders since the Byzantines destroyed most of the Ostrogothic nation in Italy in the war of AD 535-553. Only a few Gothic personal names survive in documents from the subsequent Byzantine Exarchate of Ravenna. The Ostrogoths were dead as a nation.

Vallicanus
03-02-12, 10:59
I agree with Zanipolo that U-152 is of Ligurian/Helvetic (or Ligurian-Rhaetian even) origin with some Gallic mix.

zanipolo
03-02-12, 11:01
Ancient Venetic and medieval High German come from 2 different time frames and 2 different branches of IE languages so your view is erroneous.:useless:

first of all, i did not write the book...did you read it

next, why did you not give the same reason to others claiming lombardic is old high german ?

why did you place medieval when nobody mentioned it. OR are you meaning to say dark ages?...again I did not mention this

Vallicanus
03-02-12, 11:08
first of all, i did not write the book...did you read it

next, why did you not give the same reason to others claiming lombardic is old high german ?

why did you place medieval when nobody mentioned it. OR are you meaning to say dark ages?...again I did not mention this


Well then, the book is nonsense because it was early medieval Sound Shifts that created High German while the Veneti lived in antiquity. A linguistic link is unlikely between Venetic and High German.

I agree with your view on the origin of R1b-U152.

Taranis
03-02-12, 17:50
Frankly there are only a couple of documents from this era in Latin (historia langobardorum) which transliterates Lombardic names, and these are probably the works of scribes trained in Western Europe who are most likely not themselves Lombards - How they transliterate (through multiple languages) a names spelling is not in any way convincing evidence of anything, which is why no scholar has done more than suggest at what this hints at, since it proves zero.
These people and whoever they brought back with them from the Carpathians, or whatever they consisted of genetically after coming back from the Carpathians had interchange with western Germanic tribes and could adopt their naming conventions wholesale, before adopting vulgar latin wholesale, which we also know they did.

I make NO assumptions.. only theories that I do not invest anything certain in, as pertains to ancillary minutiae. The language and tribal attributions from Pliny the elder etc.. -who never left the Mediterranean in his life- dont do anything to my arguments.. since my argument is NOT dependent on them.. YOUR ARGUMENT is dependent on these things, and not successfully so.

My argument is based exclusively on hard genetic evidence in the modern descendants of the populations of the eastern germanic and elbic germanic populations in their region of settlement.

To overcome these actual scientific facts, I am met with a flurry of questionable wikipedia-derived citations about random historical or linguistic musings that have no real impact of proving anything, except derailing the actual facts that cannot be impeached into a ancient tribal debate that is a matter of opinion and allows the proponent to continue ignoring the actual facts he cannot otherwise impeach.

There are loan words of every language in every other language it has had contact with or is neighbour of. The DNA evidence is that the largest concentrated presence of U-152 / s-28 on planet earth, with no other challenger,
is unquestionably in the settlement lands of the Lombardic and Gothic populations within the Po Valley. THAT is the issue. If you can prove that near majority genetic component in this lone region is not a legacy of these destroyed populations, then do it. It you cannot, then all the 'loanworks' and tribal theory does not save you.

Look man, I have no idea what your problem is that you use such harsh language. Anyways, the question that I have: what exactly are you asserting that I'm arguing here? If you have carefully read my posts, I have not been arguing for or against any relationship of the Langobards with R1b-U152 whatsoever. I've been merely seeking to debunk Zanipolo's claim that the Langobards were East Germanic or even North Germanic (geographically or linguistically), and there's no evidence to support this. Furthermore, I carefully stated that the Langobards were not mentioned by Pliny (as you asserted that I did), but by Tacitus and Ptolemy, and I carefully stated the differences there, and the way I see it, you have nothing to argue against that, because this is a question that is completely unrelated to genetics.

Likewise, I would also reiterate what other people said, namely that the association of R1a == wholly Slavic, is a fallacy. You should be aware of the fact that R1a has been in Europe since the Copper Age. The sample of R1a from Eulau, Germany, dates to circa 2600 BC.

Taranis
03-02-12, 18:27
I dont think anyone can in any way associate U106 with the Lombards beyond a simple guess. or a assumption.

The ONLY reason we can associate U106/s21 with anglo-saxon migrations in the UK is that it composes a large part of the local populations descendants into CURRENT modern times,
while surrounding isles/bythonic peoples are virtually absent R1b-s21 in their populations except where historical introgression or intermixture permits such low-level exchange of s21.

The exact same argument exists in the Po Valley germanic settlements, which consists of not only Lombards but other eastern Gothic populations, destroyed gepid populations, and other east germanic tribal residue that is coming in from the collapsing east to their new homeland in the Po Valley.

The modern descendants of these populations (like the large anomaly of R1b-s21 in saxon/jute/angle english populations) have a large genetic anomaly with U-152 being at it highest point in any human population extant. The original sources of these populations are long since migrated, over-run, or destroyed, and they are condensed into the Po Valley settlements.

The U-152 has bleed-over into surrounding areas (swiss for instance), but in areas farther from the eastern germanic settlements in the Po Valley, you only find (at the very most most) one-fifth the male populations in U-152, at best, instead of one out of two males being U-152 within the Po Valley settlement area.
This does not seem to confirm a expansion OUT OF the earlier celtic/la tene genetic presence, but actually seems to show a intrusion INTO the alpine populations in proximity to the Po Valley eastern Germanic settlements.

There is a strong case for U-106 in the UK being a legacy of anglo-saxons in particular, but trying to then use this to substantiate that every Germanic tribal population (including destroyed eastern germanics that we have no way to test directly from living populations) is marked by either hg I1 or by R1b-s21/u106 is where you are no longer in the realm of fact, but have moved to personal fancy that is unsupported by any ancient DNA results or data.

As to Maciamo's interpretations, he is like most of us focused on that which is most close to home with him. As a resident of Belgium, his focus in my guess was on seeing and identifying a peculiar 'Belgic' type of Y-dna marker.

Where I would differ with Maciamo's interpretations is that I can very easily explain the low-levels of U-152 also being found in Belgium and the Low countries far more logically as Goth components folded into the Franks and then later Lotharingian populations in this very area at low levels/percentages,
than I can explain this SNP by relating it to the once dominant 'Belgic' tribal population as seems to be Maciamo's theory. If this was a legacy of Belgic populations, why is it vastly, vastly outstripped by every other form of R1b within its own tidy region, and why is it that the only localities of dominance for this particular SNP in the Po Valley have no relation in any form to Belgic tribes.

For the dominant U-152 in the Po Valley be Celtic, let alone 'Belgic', one must go back through a millenia of celtic populations in this area being mass-murdered, enslaved, pursued and captured as far as the Alps, sold in chains by the tens of thousands.. starved in famines, being subjected to Romans, Byzantines, Avars, Huns, and then Eastern Gothics eastern Germanic tribes.. and still be a vast majority over the final mass population resettlement of the Po Valley who we know came in vast numbers..

This is simply not logical.

Honestly, the idea that R1b-U152 is supposedly exclusively East Germanic does not make sense, either. How do you explain British U152? It cannot be Germanic in any way, since there's virtually no R1b-U152 in the homeland of the Anglo-Saxons. Furthermore, there never was any East Germanic presence in Britain.

In my opinion, the most plausible hypothesis is that U152 can be originally tied with the Urnfield Culture of Bronze Age, and that the cummulative effect of later history explains the rest.

corinth
04-02-12, 05:37
i believe U-152 was a ligurian/helvetic with some gallic mix , it was not germanic at the start


I think given the science of genetic anthropology and population genetics we can do better than simply 'believe'.
I respect your right to believe, but belief tends to be rooted in faith as opposed to fact and does not actually require the science.
Belief often overrules science, as with Mssr Gallileo, What I prefer is reproducible knowledge.


Nevertheless the Lombards viewed Italy as a rich land which promised great booty,[23][26] assets Alboin used to gather together a horde which included not only Lombards but many other peoples of the region, including Heruli, Suebi, Gepids, Thuringii, Bulgars, Sarmatians, the remaining Romans and a few Ostrogoths. But the most important group, other than the Lombards, were the Saxons, of whom 20,000 participated in the trek. These Saxons were tributaries to the Frankish King Sigebert, and their participation indicates that Alboin had the support of the Franks for his venture.[7][27]


The invasion of Venetia generated a considerable level of turmoil, spurring waves of refugees from the Lombard-controlled interior to the Byzantine-held coast, often led by their bishops, and resulting in new settlements such as Torcello and Heraclia.[47][48][49]


From Forum Iulii, Alboin next reached Aquileia, the most important road junction in the northeast,[45] and the administrative capital of Venetia. The imminent arrival of the Lombards had a considerable impact on the city's population; the Patriarch of Aquileia Paulinus fled with his clergy and flock to the island of Grado in Byzantine-controlled territory.[7][46]


Alboin moved west in his march, invading the region of Liguria (north-east Italy) and reaching its capital Mediolanum (Milan) on September 3, 569, only to find it already abandoned


The germanic tribal populations that conquered the Po Valley under the Lombards include far more than literal Lombards, and the lombardic host is probably smaller than the mass of other eastern germanic and Bavarian-west germanics within their forces.

According to the only sources we have, the population of the Lombardic impacted areas who could escape fled to the Byzantines, and Liguria was vitually depopulated.

The entities that come to move into Italy with 'lombardic' forces are primarily eastern germanics and what today would consist of 'Bavarian' soutwestern germans..

The Bavarians enmasse leave Italy after taking booty, and coming into conflict with the Lombards who want to settle instead of only rape.

While I am open to considering any indigenous population, or tribal affiliate that came with the Lombardic hosts,
I am not open to automatically eliminating the U-152 as Lombardic or eastern germanic population when it is the dominant power and passed very exclusionary racial laws within this territory..


Under Liutprand's laws if a Roman married a Langobard woman she
lost her status, and the sons born in such a union were Romans like their father and had to live by his
laws.

corinth
04-02-12, 06:09
Honestly, the idea that R1b-U152 is supposedly exclusively East Germanic does not make sense, either. How do you explain British U152? It cannot be Germanic in any way, since there's virtually no R1b-U152 in the homeland of the Anglo-Saxons. Furthermore, there never was any East Germanic presence in Britain.

In my opinion, the most plausible hypothesis is that U152 can be originally tied with the Urnfield Culture of Bronze Age, and that the cummulative effect of later history explains the rest.

There is really no problem there, at all..

I dont think you would see any significant U-152 / s28 in modern english populations if not for a little thing called the Norman Invasion.
The total U-152 presence in Britain is what.. 3-4% (if even that) of the modern English Y-dna? The Normans included a composite of almost every French regional population but in particular the Flemings, Northern French, and in all these regions of France you have a giant army of Goths who led the attack against the Hunnic army.

As time wore on, these Goths and their related migrating populations became part of the Frankish nation, and thus part of its tributaries including modern French, Belgian and Fleming/Dutch populations - The bowmen of the low countries in particular was critical to the Normans and all these ethnicities received a share of the Gothic and eastern germanic forces genetics in their ancestries.

Thus, a small portion of modern 'norman'-descended english are going to have Frankish ancestry from these Gothic/eastern germanic components that merged into the Frankish nation, and share the same migrations and originate from the same regions in the east as the Lombardy U-152 settlers.


If a man should commit an immorality with a female slave ''belonging to thenations'' he must pay her lord twenty solidi, if with a Roman, twelve solidi, the Roman bond-woman
being of less value than the slave of Teutonic or other origin. This is the only reference to Romans as
such in Rothari's laws. If a slave or aldius married a free Langobard woman, her relatives had a right to
slay her or sell her and divide her substance.


The Lombardic germanics passed what were in effect racial laws, that did not offer the same protection to Italians within the Po Valley, and in particular punished any italian male who married or consorted with a germanic female. Thus, its not likely that a majority genetic component of this races Y-dna would account for the vast majority of the male Y-lines in the Po Valley, unless it was from a larger Italic population that reinforced itself from the Byzantine/Roman-held lands over time..

the problem with that scenario is, these outlying populations do not show that high a pct for U-152, and as with the Swiss lands at 15-20% U-152 actually look like they are Recieving U-152 from the Po Valley male rulers, as opposed to being the well-spring of this Y-dna into the germanic held regions.


The Romans had then no courage
to resist because the pestilence which occurred at the time of Narses had destroyed very many in Liguria
and Venetia, and after the year of plenty of which we spoke, a great famine attacked and devastated all
Italy. It is certain that Alboin then brought with him to Italy many men from various peoples which either
other kings or he himself had taken. Whence, even until today, we call the villages in which they dwell
Gepidan, Bulgarian, Sarmatian, Pannonian, Suabian, Norican, or by other names of this kind.

corinth
04-02-12, 06:54
I hope you are not suggesting that R-152 in the Po valley comes from Germanic invaders and even East Germanic invaders since the Byzantines destroyed most of the Ostrogothic nation in Italy in the war of AD 535-553. Only a few Gothic personal names survive in documents from the subsequent Byzantine Exarchate of Ravenna. The Ostrogoths were dead as a nation.

There is a huge problem with the attribution Goth, because from ancient historians until now, there is constant confusion and misrepresentation about calling "Getae" by the term "Goth" and vice versa-

I will come back to this in a moment, but first this=


At the close of the 4th century AD, Claudian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claudian), court poet to the emperor Honorius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flavius_Augustus_Honorius) and the patrician (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrician_(ancient_Rome)) Stilicho (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stilicho), habitually uses the ethnonym Getae to refer poetically to the Visigoths (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visigoths). During 5th and 6th centuries, several writers (Marcellinus Comes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcellinus_Comes), Orosius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paulus_Orosius), John Lydus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lydus), Isidore of Seville (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isidore_of_Seville), Procopius of Caesarea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procopius_of_Caesarea)) used the same ethnonym Getae to name populations invading the Eastern Roman Empire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Roman_Empire). In the third book of the History of the Wars (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/History_of_the_Wars/Book_III) Procopius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procopius) details: "There were many Gothic nations in earlier times, just as also at the present, but the greatest and most important of all are the Goths, Vandals, Visigoths, and Gepaedes. In ancient times, however, they were named Sauromatae and Melanchlaeni; and there were some too who called these nations Getic."[49] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Getae#cite_note-48)
The Getae were also assumed to be the ancestors of the Goths by Jordanes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordanes) in his Getica (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origin_and_Deeds_of_the_Goths) written at the middle of the 6th century.


The factuality of a lot of the attributions from these ancient sources, who in many cases are merely passing along tales that they are told and have weak factual basis is shown in that the homeland of the 'Goths' who invade Italy happens to be virtually identical to the homelands of the Getae, who were long purported a Dacian tribe (who are tall, with red and blonde hair) and lived on the steppes of Southern Ukraine for time immemorial -

Then we consider this=


Hodgkin (V, 99) adds that it is hopeless to get any
possible scheme of Lombard chronology out of these early chapters of Paul; that his narrative would
place the migration from Scandinavia about A. D. 320, whereas the Langobards were dwelling south of
the Baltic at the birth of Christ; that he represents Agelmund, whose place in the narrative makes it
impossible to fix his date later than 350, as slain in battle by the Bulgarians, who first appeared in Europe
about 479.


The chronology of the Lombards migration tales is either badly misreprented along a time line, or its simply made up.. it does not actually fit in any way shape of form the possible timeline that it reports. Entire portions of the Lombards residence in vastly opposite regions of the European continent are impossible to work, in fact.

NOW WE COME TO THIS=


[1] Mommsen calls attention (p. 75) to the close relation of the Gothic and Langobard legends. The
Goths wandered from the island of Scandia, where many nations dwell (Jordanes, Ch. 3), among them
the Vinoviloth, who may be the Winnili. From there the Goths sailed upon three vessels under their king
Berich to the mainland (Ch. 4, 17). The first people they encountered in battle were the Vandals (Ch. 4).
Further on the Amazons were introduced,
and Mommsen concludes (p. 76): "It may be that these Langobard and Gothic traditions are both fragments of a great legend of the origin of the whole German people or that the Gothic story-teller has stirred the Langobard to the making of similar fables. Hodgkin (V, 98) also notices the similarity of Langobard history to that of the Goths, as told by Jordanes.


The migration tales that do not fit into the timelines they offer are effectively the same tale being told between both the Gothic and the Lombardic populations. These seem to be a tale created and embraced to create a communal history for warring Germanic tribal populations in this era, as opposed to literal factual occurrences. A tribal population could even be germanified by giving their tribe a name and history that accords with this communal myth.

NEXT=


Therefore the Langobards, coming at last into Mauringa, in order that they might increase the number oftheir warriors, confer liberty upon many whom they deliver from the yoke of bondage, and that the
freedom of these may be regarded as established, they confirm it in their accustomed way by an arrow,
uttering certain words of their country in confirmation of the fact.[1] Then the Langobards went forth
from Mauringa and came to Golanda, [2] where, having remained some time, they are afterwards said to
have possessed for some years Anthaib [3] and Banthaib, [4] and in like manner Vurgundaib


I do not believe that the 'Goths' or 'Lombards' ever touched ancestral foot in Scandinavia.. I think they are the same Blonde/Red haired 'Getae' who had been present in the Southern Ukraine going back into pre-history. I think they adopt the Germanic cultural/tribal foundation myths that are held in common with other tribal germanic populations at this time.

This is also why=


reasons why the Lombards disappear, as such, from Roman history from 166–489 could be that they dwelt so deep into Inner Germania that they were detectable only when they appeared on the Danubian banks again, or that the Lombards were also subjected into a bigger tribal union, most probably the Saxons.[33]

There is not guarantee that the tribe in eastern romania later calling itself 'Lombards' is the same tribal population referred to in the First century A.D., and in fact its probable they are not.. Such a case occured with the 'Avars' name being used by asiatic but non-Avar populations,
resulting in their being exposed to the Byzantines as fakes, and called thereafter "Psuedo-Avars".
You are encountering creation myths in which populations are re-creating themselves and establishing linkage to neighboring cultures or community.

What you are likely seeing is a very dangerous world, in which any population could face being exterminated or enslaved over their campfire that evening, and in which these populations are seeking some alliance and brotherhood probably based upon Phenotype (appearance) similarity when possible.. and they create a history to establish this fraternity between them..

I think the Lombards and the Goths, the ones who are actually reported of in history- from the movement out of Pannonia- were part of the Getae and they were in that area for a long time.
As that world became a war zone with asia moving west, they recreated themselves and may have even been speaking a Germanic language from earlier time to begin with, making the process easier to do..
beyond a couple vague Tactitus tribal mentions in the First century A.D., the Lombards disappear from history entirely until suddenly arising in the east.. AT LEAST IN NAME.

This is admittedly theory, and I offer it as theory, but it is also based on historical citations and dissection of those citations as above.. the core issue here is,
be careful in this time period with these tales, because they do not fit together in the light of their timelines, they are the same tale historically, for both the Lombards and Goths of this era, and they are routine both lumped into the Getae over the course of this time frame, who ARE without question quite indigenous a population to the eastern steppes..

zanipolo
04-02-12, 07:11
There is a huge problem with the attribution Goth, because from ancient historians until now, there is constant confusion and misrepresentation about calling "Getae" by the term "Goth" and vice versa-

I will come back to this in a moment, but first this=



The factuality of a lot of the attributions from these ancient sources, who in many cases are merely passing along tales that they are told and have weak factual basis is shown in that the homeland of the 'Goths' who invade Italy happens to be virtually identical to the homelands of the Getae, who were long purported a Dacian tribe (who are tall, with red and blonde hair) and lived on the steppes of Southern Ukraine for time immemorial -

Then we consider this=



The chronology of the Lombards migration tales is either badly misreprented along a time line, or its simply made up.. it does not actually fit in any way shape of form the possible timeline that it reports. Entire portions of the Lombards residence in vastly opposite regions of the European continent are impossible to work, in fact.

NOW WE COME TO THIS=



The migration tales that do not fit into the timelines they offer are effectively the same tale being told between both the Gothic and the Lombardic populations. These seem to be a tale created and embraced to create a communal history for warring Germanic tribal populations in this era, as opposed to literal factual occurrences. A tribal population could even be germanified by giving their tribe a name and history that accords with this communal myth.

NEXT=



I do not believe that the 'Goths' or 'Lombards' ever touched ancestral foot in Scandinavia.. I think they are the same Blonde/Red haired 'Getae' who had been present in the Southern Ukraine going back into pre-history. I think they adopt the Germanic cultural/tribal foundation myths that are held in common with other tribal germanic populations at this time.

This is also why=



There is not guarantee that the tribe in eastern romania later calling itself 'Lombards' is the same tribal population referred to in the First century A.D., and in fact its probable they are not.. Such a case occured with the 'Avars' name being used by asiatic but non-Avar populations,
resulting in their being exposed to the Byzantines as fakes, and called thereafter "Psuedo-Avars".
You are encountering creation myths in which populations are re-creating themselves and establishing linkage to neighboring cultures or community.

What you are likely seeing is a very dangerous world, in which any population could face being exterminated or enslaved over their campfire that evening, and in which these populations are seeking some alliance and brotherhood probably based upon Phenotype (appearance) similarity when possible.. and they create a history to establish this fraternity between them..

I think the Lombards and the Goths, the ones who are actually reported of in history- from the movement out of Pannonia- were part of the Getae and they were in that area for a long time.
As that world became a war zone with asia moving west, they recreated themselves and may have even been speaking a Germanic language from earlier time to begin with, making the process easier to do..
beyond a couple vague Tactitus tribal mentions in the First century A.D., the Lombards disappear from history entirely until suddenly arising in the east.. AT LEAST IN NAME.

This is admittedly theory, and I offer it as theory, but it is also based on historical citations and dissection of those citations as above.. the core issue here is,
be careful in this time period with these tales, because they do not fit together in the light of their timelines, they are the same tale historically, for both the Lombards and Goths of this era, and they are routine both lumped into the Getae over the course of this time frame, who ARE without question quite indigenous a population to the eastern steppes..

you should discard all things written by Jordanes as he was a goth, he stole his written historical data from another man, cappidorous and in less than a week distorted the truth. The are many scholars who have written about jordanes fantasies

Vallicanus
04-02-12, 10:46
you should discard all things written by Jordanes as he was a goth, he stole his written historical data from another man, cappidorous and in less than a week distorted the truth. The are many scholars who have written about jordanes fantasies

Agreed.

Furthermore, Corinth's views on the origins of R1b-U152 in Northern Italy are the purest fantasy and I suspect he has some odd agenda.

R1b-U152 in the Po valley dates mainly from the Urnfields people in and around the Swiss Alps not later Germanic invaders of whatever linguistic type.

Corinth should try finding masses of Germanic-looking types in modern Northern Italy.:laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing:

zanipolo
04-02-12, 11:08
There is a huge problem with the attribution Goth, because from ancient historians until now, there is constant confusion and misrepresentation about calling "Getae" by the term "Goth" and vice versa-

I will come back to this in a moment, but first this=



The factuality of a lot of the attributions from these ancient sources, who in many cases are merely passing along tales that they are told and have weak factual basis is shown in that the homeland of the 'Goths' who invade Italy happens to be virtually identical to the homelands of the Getae, who were long purported a Dacian tribe (who are tall, with red and blonde hair) and lived on the steppes of Southern Ukraine for time immemorial -

Then we consider this=



The chronology of the Lombards migration tales is either badly misreprented along a time line, or its simply made up.. it does not actually fit in any way shape of form the possible timeline that it reports. Entire portions of the Lombards residence in vastly opposite regions of the European continent are impossible to work, in fact.

NOW WE COME TO THIS=



The migration tales that do not fit into the timelines they offer are effectively the same tale being told between both the Gothic and the Lombardic populations. These seem to be a tale created and embraced to create a communal history for warring Germanic tribal populations in this era, as opposed to literal factual occurrences. A tribal population could even be germanified by giving their tribe a name and history that accords with this communal myth.

NEXT=



I do not believe that the 'Goths' or 'Lombards' ever touched ancestral foot in Scandinavia.. I think they are the same Blonde/Red haired 'Getae' who had been present in the Southern Ukraine going back into pre-history. I think they adopt the Germanic cultural/tribal foundation myths that are held in common with other tribal germanic populations at this time.

This is also why=



There is not guarantee that the tribe in eastern romania later calling itself 'Lombards' is the same tribal population referred to in the First century A.D., and in fact its probable they are not.. Such a case occured with the 'Avars' name being used by asiatic but non-Avar populations,
resulting in their being exposed to the Byzantines as fakes, and called thereafter "Psuedo-Avars".
You are encountering creation myths in which populations are re-creating themselves and establishing linkage to neighboring cultures or community.

What you are likely seeing is a very dangerous world, in which any population could face being exterminated or enslaved over their campfire that evening, and in which these populations are seeking some alliance and brotherhood probably based upon Phenotype (appearance) similarity when possible.. and they create a history to establish this fraternity between them..

I think the Lombards and the Goths, the ones who are actually reported of in history- from the movement out of Pannonia- were part of the Getae and they were in that area for a long time.
As that world became a war zone with asia moving west, they recreated themselves and may have even been speaking a Germanic language from earlier time to begin with, making the process easier to do..
beyond a couple vague Tactitus tribal mentions in the First century A.D., the Lombards disappear from history entirely until suddenly arising in the east.. AT LEAST IN NAME.

This is admittedly theory, and I offer it as theory, but it is also based on historical citations and dissection of those citations as above.. the core issue here is,
be careful in this time period with these tales, because they do not fit together in the light of their timelines, they are the same tale historically, for both the Lombards and Goths of this era, and they are routine both lumped into the Getae over the course of this time frame, who ARE without question quite indigenous a population to the eastern steppes..

you fail to comprehend, that migrating people pick up other haplo types on there travels, take the goths - from east-germany to sweden to gotland to vistula delta to the balck sea, around the balkans and then italy.
they assimilated the following that I know, swedes, gotlanders, venedi, aestii, heruli, peucini, bastanae, sarmatians, dacian, getae and I still have not entered the balkans.
How many different haplo types are there in this "gothic" contingent?

The lombards are similar

Carrying one huge percentage of haplo tpye with 1 tribe is pure fantasy

Vallicanus
04-02-12, 12:43
you fail to comprehend, that migrating people pick up other haplo types on there travels, take the goths - from east-germany to sweden to gotland to vistula delta to the balck sea, around the balkans and then italy.
they assimilated the following that I know, swedes, gotlanders, venedi, aestii, heruli, peucini, bastanae, sarmatians, dacian, getae and I still have not entered the balkans.
How many different haplo types are there in this "gothic" contingent?

The lombards are similar

Carrying one huge percentage of haplo tpye with 1 tribe is pure fantasy

You are also backed by physical anthropology as to the mixed nature of the Lombard invaders.

Istvan Kiszely found no less than SIXTEEN different phenotypes in Lombard cemeteries of the 6th and 7th century in central Europe and Italy.

Nordic and partly Nordic types were generally commoner north of the Alps than in Italy in Lombard cemeteries.

"Lombard" was more of a legal term than an ethnic one.

SOURCE: Anthropology of the Lombards by I.Kiszely (1979).

Taranis
04-02-12, 13:10
There is really no problem there, at all..

I dont think you would see any significant U-152 / s28 in modern english populations if not for a little thing called the Norman Invasion.
The total U-152 presence in Britain is what.. 3-4% (if even that) of the modern English Y-dna? The Normans included a composite of almost every French regional population but in particular the Flemings, Northern French, and in all these regions of France you have a giant army of Goths who led the attack against the Hunnic army.

As time wore on, these Goths and their related migrating populations became part of the Frankish nation, and thus part of its tributaries including modern French, Belgian and Fleming/Dutch populations - The bowmen of the low countries in particular was critical to the Normans and all these ethnicities received a share of the Gothic and eastern germanic forces genetics in their ancestries.

Thus, a small portion of modern 'norman'-descended english are going to have Frankish ancestry from these Gothic/eastern germanic components that merged into the Frankish nation, and share the same migrations and originate from the same regions in the east as the Lombardy U-152 settlers.

You're wrong regarding the percentage of U152 in Britain. I would say that it is closer to 5% on average in Britain, and it exceeds 10% in eastern England and the Scottish lowlands.

In any case, your idea to tie U152 with the Norman invasion does not make sense in the slightest. First, there is no evidence that the Norman invasion was tied in any shape with a large-scale population replacement, and second your assumption that such large tracts of the Frankish population were purportedly Gothic-descended lacks any basis in history. The most sensible explanation for British U152 really is the iron age invasion/immigration. You could also assume that there might be some U152 from the Roman period, but it's doubtful that it arrived later.

No offense, but the claim that 10% of the male population of the Scottish lowlands are descended from Gothic-descended Normans seems quite absurd.


The Lombardic germanics passed what were in effect racial laws, that did not offer the same protection to Italians within the Po Valley, and in particular punished any italian male who married or consorted with a germanic female. Thus, its not likely that a majority genetic component of this races Y-dna would account for the vast majority of the male Y-lines in the Po Valley, unless it was from a larger Italic population that reinforced itself from the Byzantine/Roman-held lands over time..

Huh, what? Can you cite any source for such an outlandish statement?


the problem with that scenario is, these outlying populations do not show that high a pct for U-152, and as with the Swiss lands at 15-20% U-152 actually look like they are Recieving U-152 from the Po Valley male rulers, as opposed to being the well-spring of this Y-dna into the germanic held regions.

That's a fallacy. We necessarily cannot assume that the areas where Y-Haplogroups are most frequent today are those where the Haplogroup originated.

corinth
05-02-12, 01:26
Agreed.

Furthermore, Corinth's views on the origins of R1b-U152 in Northern Italy are the purest fantasy and I suspect he has some odd agenda.
R1b-U152 in the Po valley dates mainly from the Urnfields people in and around the Swiss Alps not later Germanic invaders of whatever linguistic type.
Corinth should try finding masses of Germanic-looking types in modern Northern Italy.:laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing:

My one "view" that I present as fact is that U-152 has one lone concentration in Europe, and excepting Bashkortastan, no other locality on earth has the concentration of U-152 that the Po Valley contains.

Thus, it is senseless prejudice to suggest that the last major settlement of that region is not one of the most probably causes for its concentration. As I said previously, if you have hard genetic evidence to counter that, then present it. If you dont, then admit so, and simply adopt what a eariler poster conceded, in that he merely "believes" and his assertions are faith-based "Belief" in nature..

Arguing over 'germanic-looking' types and whatnot is really not even a valuable remark worthy of any response, frankly.

corinth
05-02-12, 02:09
you fail to comprehend, that migrating people pick up other haplo types on there travels, take the goths - How many different haplo types are there in this "gothic" contingent? The lombards are similar
Carrying one huge percentage of haplo tpye with 1 tribe is pure fantasy

I think you are missing the forest for the trees..

I 'fail to comprehend' nothing of the sort, you fail to read or digest what I posted in the very posts you responded to.. Maybe I fail to fully explain what I am suggesting for that matter..

If you read back to my posts from yesterday, I am the one citing ancient sources mentioning the various tribes and broken portions of tribes that composed the "Lombard" invasion force into the Po Valley. Earlier, I was told by posters that the Lombards genetically could not contain gothic (or what I would assert was actually 'getae-getic' elements) in their genetics because the Goths are a spent, broken and unrelated force.

I showed you where, inspite the naming/tribal conventions, these are effectively tribal bodies of similar eastern genetics, and their own histories are impossible to be true..
In my estimation, they made no migrations from scandinavia, they are likely all elements of the Europid-getae / Massagetae who are Europid in appearance going back to their earliest descriptions, a millenia before any of these events in Pannonia and the Po Valley.
The appearances of these populations being like european tribes- a 'white' population phenotype- they created and adopted the same myths in these tribes they encounter as they move west to explain their brotherhood to continental europid populations-

Since even in 400 a.d. the "north" was equated with white/europid populations, they placed their origin from the farthest north.
This is no different that the Roman/Italian founding myth of Romulus and remus suckled by a she wolf and being noble immigrants who managed to escape the slaughter inside the walls of Troy.

As I ALSO noted and QUOTED in my previous post, many of those non-eastern populations who participated in this migration/invasion of the Po Valley were not of these eastern genetics, and like the Bavarians and Saxons were only interested in the sack, rapine, and loot.. they left enmasse from Italy soon after they were prevented from further looting or rapine.

Thus, while you did have diverse populations that participate, most of them are not there for the goal of finding a nice homestead and running a farm and raising kids. They are there for the opportunity of the conquest, and they are not intent to stay or make this their place of residence.

A Gepid, Vandal, Thuringian, Heruli, Lombard, Goth..etc.. (most of these are effectively genetically Getic/getae factions, imo) also have another huge incentive to materially alter their "history" and create a heroic and false one in its stead..

This reason is, in post Chalons' Europe, these are populations that were enslaved and often lackies of the Hunnic Asiatics who had been at last defeated by the Visigothic coalition. For this reason, the tale of the Lombards heroically overthrowing their Hunnic conquerors is not so neccesarily heroic in the reality that they overthrew a defeated and retreating Hun, that they had previously been slaves to.

So, the impossible myth that is presented of a migration with a fake timeline from Scandinavia for both the Lombards and Goths populations serves to obscure the fact that they are actually Getae who lived in the east all along, (U-152 is found as far east in residual populations as Bashkortostan), they had been subject to the Hunnic forces,
and they adopted titles in some cases (transliterated 'lombard') that are heroic tribal names of renown in this time, claiming this history as best they can imagine it, in a way that people today wear a sports jersey of a famous and skilled athlete or professional sports team, to identify and coalesce their identity with this success.

The only population that was really intent on making a homeland out of the Po Valley were the Lombardics and their subject eastern germanics (heruli, gepids etc..) and these as probable divisions of the eastern Getae gene pool would be very consistent genetically across all of their populations, as all were retreating toward a phenotypically Europid populated region, which was no longer the case in their now hostile steppes. They only account for roughly 1/2 the Po Valley Y-lines which leaves plently of other non-U152 Y-lines in modern populations.

corinth
05-02-12, 02:20
You're wrong regarding the percentage of U152 in Britain. I would say that it is closer to 5% on average in Britain, and it exceeds 10% in eastern England and the Scottish lowlands.

The OVERALL presence in England of U-152 by my offhand guess was 3-4%
YOUR offhand estimate (maybe more researched than mine, quite possibly) was 4-5%

Do you really feel that the extra 1% of U-152 in the overall population is really a significant advantage to your argument, because that is all you are gaining!

Suggesting that in one or a couple particular english counties that the pct goes up to 10% U-152 is effectively the same argument I am making and that you are opposing as pertains to a mild genetic bottleneck in localities adjoining the Po Valley settlements that could not likely explain the SOURCE of U-152 that exists in the Po Valley, but could explain a mild founder effect for Y-lines coming out of the large pool in the Po Valley.

In either case, I showed you what you asked, which was a route that is known, documented, and historical in which Visigothic and eastern germanic elements that 'win' portions of Gaul and the modern low countries come to be part of the later Lotharingians and Norman invasion forces, as well as norman traders, settlers, workers, imported after the invasion.

The fact that you dont want to acknowledge this route is your decision but does not negate that it exists, and that the pool of U-152 that we need to account for in the modern English population is a tiny part of the English gene pool..


Huh, what? Can you cite any source for such an outlandish statement?

respectfully, read back to my posts from yesterday, and you will find citation of several Lombardic laws in effect that enforce a racial apartheid as it pertained to lombardic/germanic females and italic males-
If you do not choose to read and respond to the actual citations that I already posted only yesterday, then please do not ask me to repost them the next day.


That's a fallacy. We necessarily cannot assume that the areas where Y-Haplogroups are most frequent today are those where the Haplogroup originated.

Absolutely agree on this,..
and my point exactly is, we can not be in the business of automatically refusing such a possibility EITHER. With English U-106 not yet identified as germanic some years ago,

many genetic 'experts' and pundits were writing books proclaiming that very little germanic or continental anglo-saxon was ever passed to the English who were a overwhelmingly Brythonic celtic population.

WITH U-106 identified and typed to northern germanic populations into modern times, we recognize that very likely as opposed to the 20% of english R1a/I1/Q accounting for the anglo-saxons, these are probably mostly scandinavians, while another 25% of U-106 are likely the angle/jute/saxon component..
This brings the total non-brythonic celtic ancestry in modern english to around 45% of the total male ancestry, hardly showing "little introgression" as the pundits had written. We are not even yet dealing with non-germanic/non-scandinavian isles-introgression at this 45% figure..btw.

Without the modern frisian, jutish, danish, germanic populations continued residence over more that a millenia in their areas of frequency to this day, no one could ever connect U-106 to anglo-saxon migrations. This is the ENTIRE BASIS for this attribution.

So, suggesting that in all cases one cannot make a genetic assumption based on which Hg is prominent in a area to this day is quite true,
but one also cannot discount or eliminate such a case unless it is based on clear either genetic evidence or ancient Y-dna results- what is being used to derail U-152 in its anomalous homeland within the Po Valley is simple opinion, in spite of the balance of current evidence.

This is a moot point because eventually their will be as I said before Y-dna from tooth-pulp taken from some Lombardic-cultural remains,
and once this is amplified it will be established who is right and who is wrong, and whose belief or opinions are in conflict with genetic evidence.

The only thing I am saying is not to write a history based on what you think, instead of what you know.

corinth
05-02-12, 02:42
accidental duplicate post after eupedia logged me out after time limit. sorry.

zanipolo
05-02-12, 03:42
If you read back to my posts from yesterday, I am the one citing ancient sources mentioning the various tribes and broken portions of tribes that composed the "Lombard" invasion force into the Po Valley. Earlier, I was told by posters that the Lombards genetically could not contain gothic (or what I would assert was actually 'getae-getic' elements) in their genetics because the Goths are a spent, broken and unrelated force.

I showed you where, inspite the naming/tribal conventions, these are effectively tribal bodies of similar eastern genetics, and their own histories are impossible to be true..
In my estimation, they made no migrations from scandinavia, they are likely all elements of the Europid-getae / Massagetae who are Europid in appearance going back to their earliest descriptions, a millenia before any of these events in Pannonia and the Po Valley.
The appearances of these populations being like european tribes- a 'white' population phenotype- they created and adopted the same myths in these tribes they encounter as they move west to explain their brotherhood to continental europid populations-

Since even in 400 a.d. the "north" was equated with white/europid populations, they placed their origin from the farthest north.
This is no different that the Roman/Italian founding myth of Romulus and remus suckled by a she wolf and being noble immigrants who managed to escape the slaughter inside the walls of Troy.

As I ALSO noted and QUOTED in my previous post, many of those non-eastern populations who participated in this migration/invasion of the Po Valley were not of these eastern genetics, and like the Bavarians and Saxons were only interested in the sack, rapine, and loot.. they left enmasse from Italy soon after they were prevented from further looting or rapine.

Thus, while you did have diverse populations that participate, most of them are not there for the goal of finding a nice homestead and running a farm and raising kids. They are there for the opportunity of the conquest, and they are not intent to stay or make this their place of residence.

A Gepid, Vandal, Thuringian, Heruli, Lombard, Goth..etc.. (most of these are effectively genetically Getic/getae factions, imo) also have another huge incentive to materially alter their "history" and create a heroic and false one in its stead..

This reason is, in post Chalons' Europe, these are populations that were enslaved and often lackies of the Hunnic Asiatics who had been at last defeated by the Visigothic coalition. For this reason, the tale of the Lombards heroically overthrowing their Hunnic conquerors is not so neccesarily heroic in the reality that they overthrew a defeated and retreating Hun, that they had previously been slaves to.

So, the impossible myth that is presented of a migration with a fake timeline from Scandinavia for both the Lombards and Goths populations serves to obscure the fact that they are actually Getae who lived in the east all along, (U-152 is found as far east in residual populations as Bashkortostan), they had been subject to the Hunnic forces,
and they adopted titles in some cases (transliterated 'lombard') that are heroic tribal names of renown in this time, claiming this history as best they can imagine it, in a way that people today wear a sports jersey of a famous and skilled athlete or professional sports team, to identify and coalesce their identity with this success.

The only population that was really intent on making a homeland out of the Po Valley were the Lombardics and their subject eastern germanics (heruli, gepids etc..) and these as probable divisions of the eastern Getae gene pool would be very consistent genetically across all of their populations, as all were retreating toward a phenotypically Europid populated region, which was no longer the case in their now hostile steppes. They only account for roughly 1/2 the Po Valley Y-lines which leaves plently of other non-U152 Y-lines in modern populations.

first you did not look at my map on post#70 which clearly shows the lombards ( also note there are no bavarians at this time).

- The getae are not the goths , they are seperated by over 300 years , and the getae are a dacian-thracian mix who served the odyssian empire in thrace. They also fought for Alexander the great.

- The vandals as noted by some scholars are also a mix of remaining goths, lombards, burgundians, heruli and anyone else that formed this vindili confederation

- visigoths are bascially pure goths that came from east-germany and scandonavia while the ostgoths are baltic, finnic, sami, lettish and anyone else that formed the gothic confederation after arriving in the black sea area. The split of the goths was created there.

- The lombards never went that far east from east germany before heading to italy. They where merged into the indigenous ligurian people as well as celts.

I clearly do not see why you ignore the fact that the lombards are germanics

Vallicanus
05-02-12, 10:45
My one "view" that I present as fact is that U-152 has one lone concentration in Europe, and excepting Bashkortastan, no other locality on earth has the concentration of U-152 that the Po Valley contains.

Thus, it is senseless prejudice to suggest that the last major settlement of that region is not one of the most probably causes for its concentration. As I said previously, if you have hard genetic evidence to counter that, then present it. If you dont, then admit so, and simply adopt what a eariler poster conceded, in that he merely "believes" and his assertions are faith-based "Belief" in nature..

Arguing over 'germanic-looking' types and whatnot is really not even a valuable remark worthy of any response, frankly.


Obviously you have no answer to that point on phenotype and yes I know that Y-dna does not indicate phenotype.

You are not paying attention when Zanipolo and I point out that the Lombard invaders contained not only Germanic types but Bulgars, Romanised natives of Pannonia, semi-mongoloid types contributed by Avars and every concievable type found in central Europe of the 6th century.

It is illogical to think that this genetic melting pot could have been responsible for the high presence of R1b U-152 in northern Italy (actually higher in the mountainous areas of the Val di Non and the Garfagnana than in the actual Po valley).

The Byzantines wiped out MOST of the Ostrogoths so their genetic influence was slight if it even was associated with any branch of R1b.

What IS your twisted agenda (sad Nordicist?) and where is your PROOF of anything you have claimed in this whole thread?

spongetaro
05-02-12, 14:59
R1b U152 highest variance is not even in Central Europe were Italics and Celtic people originated but in South East France.
To me U152 in northern Italy is clearly of Ligurian origin who themselves originated with the Southern French Bell Beakers.

Vallicanus
05-02-12, 16:04
R1b U152 highest variance is not even in Central Europe were Italics and Celtic people originated but in South East France.
To me U152 in northern Italy is clearly of Ligurian origin who themselves originated with the Southern French Bell Beakers.

A Ligurian or Ligurian/Rhaetian origin for R1b-U152 is very likely.

Taranis
05-02-12, 16:27
R1b U152 highest variance is not even in Central Europe were Italics and Celtic people originated but in South East France.
To me U152 in northern Italy is clearly of Ligurian origin who themselves originated with the Southern French Bell Beakers.


A Ligurian or Ligurian/Rhaetian origin for R1b-U152 is very likely.

The problem is that we cannot be sure about the actual ethnolinguistic identity of the Ligurians and the Raetians.

About the former, very little is known about their language, and as a result they have been variously grouped as non-Indo-European, Indo-European (but non-Celtic) and Celtic. What is clear is that by the time the Ligurians are mentioned in ancient sources, they are seemingly already heavily Celticized.

With the latter, they did seemingly not constitute a homogenous group. The language of the so-called "Raetian" inscriptions is similar to the Etruscan language, but it is unclear (and indeed unlikely) if it was spoken by the people that the Romans called "Raeti". Many of the "Raetic" tribes are apparently Celtic or otherwise Indo-European. There are also the Cammuni, who spoke a language which may have been completely unrelated with either Etruscan or IE.

GloomyGonzales
05-02-12, 17:21
The problem is that we cannot be sure about the actual ethnolinguistic identity of the Ligurians and the Raetians.

About the former, very little is known about their language, and as a result they have been variously grouped as non-Indo-European, Indo-European (but non-Celtic) and Celtic. What is clear is that by the time the Ligurians are mentioned in ancient sources, they are seemingly already heavily Celticized.

With the latter, they did seemingly not constitute a homogenous group. The language of the so-called "Raetian" inscriptions is similar to the Etruscan language, but it is unclear (and indeed unlikely) if it was spoken by the people that the Romans called "Raeti". Many of the "Raetic" tribes are apparently Celtic or otherwise Indo-European. There are also the Cammuni, who spoke a language which may have been completely unrelated with either Etruscan or IE.

I think more correct model should as follows:
1. R1b-U152 initially settled in the South France move from there farther inland in North Italy and Switzerland. Those people were called Ligurian/Rhaetian or whatever else and they were not Indo-European speaking.
2. R1a Urnfield people from Central Europe invade in South France/Switzerland and impose themselves on R1b-152 people.
3. Part of these R1b-152 people was Indo-Europeanized and culturally assimilated turning into Proto Celtic-Italic people: R1a Urnfield elite and predominantly R1b-U152 core.
4. Part of these already Indo-European people move to Italy and bring IE Italic languages in Italy, others migrate farther inland: some invade Spain, some invade North France and from their to Britain and impose Celtic languages on local population R1-L21.

I think its rather accurate scenario and surely according to this scenario there can be no U152 East Germanic people besides some small admixture accounted for migration of some Celtic people in Central Europe and slaves trade with East and North Germanic people.

Vallicanus
05-02-12, 19:25
I think more correct model should as follows:
1. R1b-U152 initially settled in the South France move from there farther inland in North Italy and Switzerland. Those people were called Ligurian/Rhaetian or whatever else and they were not Indo-European speaking.
2. R1a Urnfield people from Central Europe invade in South France/Switzerland and impose themselves on R1b-152 people.
3. Part of these R1b-152 people was Indo-Europeanized and culturally assimilated turning into Proto Celtic-Italic people: R1a Urnfield elite and predominantly R1b-U152 core.
4. Part of these already Indo-European people move to Italy and bring IE Italic languages in Italy, others migrate farther inland: some invade Spain, some invade North France and from their to Britain and impose Celtic languages on local population R1-L21.

I think its rather accurate scenario and surely according to this scenario there can be no U152 East Germanic people besides some small admixture accounted for migration of some Celtic people in Central Europe and slaves trade with East and North Germanic people.

This is a very plausible theory.

MOESAN
05-02-12, 19:35
Gloomy Gonzalez I'm not sure for the (non?)indo-european cultural nature of the previous R-U152 - I believe as you do they were pre-indo-european people but they became indoeuropeanized (maybe at the Bell-beaker period, not being the Bell-Beakers fisrt promoters themselves (I DON'T PUT ANY MONEY ON THIS BET)- like you I see them as a numerically dominant population cristallizing in the Alps (but I'm not so precise as you, I don't tell the precise valley) among a cultural "magma" that after a previous B-B's impulse, diffentiated progressively in Celtic, Ligurian an Italic - and Venetic?- cultures not without knowing a Urnfields cultural period where more northern influences could have taken place but not changed the genetic dominance (and yet I'm sure of nothing: the Lusacian Urnfield Culture in South-Western Poland seams to gave S/S-W geographical source and not directly a W one - Lombards did a demic colonization but as others on this thread I can't imagine them becoming demographically dominant in North italy, even in the Pô plain - they modified the population partially, it's evident, but they can not have imported the majority of the R-U152 percentage - it's against common sense - surely they are responsible (with others germanic tribes) of the intensification of the R-U106 and Y-I1but the heavy presence of Y-R-U152 in East-Central Italy is for me the proof of an early italic connexion (Villanova) influenced or more surely being part of an Urnfield cultural movement - concerning BASHKIRS I'm confused by all these R-U106 people in ONLY ONE of the Bashkirland region (Myres) - It sounds curious to my ears (and brain) - I wait knowing more on that exception -

spongetaro
05-02-12, 20:10
The first wave of Italic speakers (Q Italic speakers) originated in the Vucedol culture. I really doubt that they were R1b U152.http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/16/Vucedol_culture_map.pngthen when Terramares people invaded northern Italy, The Apennine culture was pushed southward. In fact haplogroups EV13 and J2 in southern and Central Italy can also be attributed to the Apennine culture since it originated in what would become Illyria.

Vallicanus
05-02-12, 21:41
The first wave of Italic speakers (Q Italic speakers) originated in the Vucedol culture. I really doubt that they were R1b U152.http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/16/Vucedol_culture_map.pngthen when Terramares people invaded northern Italy, The Apennine culture was pushed southward. In fact haplogroups EV13 and J2 in southern and Central Italy can also be attributed to the Apennine culture since it originated in what would become Illyria.

Please explain this link between Q-Italic speakers and the Vucedol Culture.

spongetaro
05-02-12, 22:38
Please explain this link between Q-Italic speakers and the Vucedol Culture.



The Apennine culture is thought to have originated in the Vucedol culture according to French Linguist Bernard Sergent but I don't know much.
Like Celtic languages, Italic languages had a first stage with Q (like Latin for example). The "P" is a later innovation, maybe linked with the Urnfields.

corinth
05-02-12, 23:02
You are also backed by physical anthropology as to the mixed nature of the Lombard invaders.

Istvan Kiszely found no less than SIXTEEN different phenotypes in Lombard cemeteries of the 6th and 7th century in central Europe and Italy.

Nordic and partly Nordic types were generally commoner north of the Alps than in Italy in Lombard cemeteries.

"Lombard" was more of a legal term than an ethnic one.

I wanted to comment on this monstrosity above, and forgot to earlier.

I honestly do not know which is more horrifying.. in 2012..

1)CITING a phrenologist as a scientific source who cracked open and contaminated with modern DNA irreplaceable ancient burials so that he could 'play' at handling/measuring the skulls.. a practice in place dating back well into the middle ages at least, completely VALUELESS in any way, shape or form (EVEN THEN) and now utterly meaningless in a time of modern y-dna and mtdna population results..

2)or the fact that so-called "authorities" in Hungary gave this absolute idiot the permission to crack open and contaminate rare ancient burials for his nonsensical skull-measuring (phrenology) that is absolutely and completely valueless, even if it were not made obsolete by modern DNA science..

IMHO, what Kiszely was actually looking for was evidence to eliminate asiatic/mongol ancestry in precursor "Hungarian" populations.. for specific Hungarian national reasons, and to do so he forever contaminated and desecrated rare burials to serve totally unrelated ethnic/racial purposes of the time.. and sadly the Hungarian govt went along and sanctioned this.

To cite this monstrosity with any sort of seriousness or reverence, instead of with disgust and shame, on a DNA-based board is truly beyond any sort of explanation. What Kiszely did is not only of no value to any population genetics or science, it actually was a totally necessary and deliberate act of contamination against ancient DNA that boggles the mind.

corinth
05-02-12, 23:25
Obviously you have no answer to that point on phenotype and yes I know that Y-dna does not indicate phenotype.

You have your answer below, I cant believe I forgot to respond to such a incredibly ridiculous and - I will have to say- SHAMEFUL post.
Citing phrenology as a valid population genetics factor in 2012 basically is beyond shocking in its utter preposterousness. I shall not bother to respond to you in the future after such a outrageous reliance on a hungarian phrenologist cracking open ancient grave sites and contaminating them for this totally wasted purpose.


You are not paying attention when Zanipolo and I point out that the Lombard invaders contained not only Germanic types but Bulgars, Romanised natives of Pannonia, semi-mongoloid types contributed by Avars and every concievable type found in central Europe of the 6th century.

You are not paying attention where I cited Lombard sources saying that these elements came for booty, not to settle a homeland in most cases.. A lot of alien populations invade a locality for gain/slaves/loot in this era, and few actually move their families and civilian populations there to live permanently.


It is illogical to think that this genetic melting pot could have been responsible for the high presence of R1b U-152 in northern Italy (actually higher in the mountainous areas of the Val di Non and the Garfagnana than in the actual Po valley).

The Byzantines wiped out MOST of the Ostrogoths so their genetic influence was slight if it even was associated with any branch of R1b.

[citation please]


What IS your twisted agenda (sad Nordicist?) and where is your PROOF of anything you have claimed in this whole thread?

what is your twisted agenda in manically replying to me?
If I am fully wrong and you are completely right, why bother to constantly respond to me on a issue that you are merely a dispassionate observer? Why is it so compelling to you to need to countermand my opinion to the degree you cite wackjob phrenologists with skull measurements that would get laughed out of any genetics conference?

what agenda do you have?

corinth
05-02-12, 23:38
first you did not look at my map on post#70 which clearly shows the lombards ( also note there are no bavarians at this time).
- The getae are not the goths , they are seperated by over 300 years , and the getae are a dacian-thracian mix who served the odyssian empire in thrace. They also fought for Alexander the great.

I think they are/were the same and the identical migrations history myths of the Goths and Lombards are a manufactured history of a people creating a mythology that links them, instead on long-standing prey and subjected populations of the Huns, to a new founding myth. This is why there is no history of these populations until they suddenly spring anew in the east in the homeland of the Getae around the 5th century.


- The vandals as noted by some scholars are also a mix of remaining goths, lombards, burgundians, heruli and anyone else that formed this vindili confederation

Irrelevant to any of my argument..but Ok whatever.


- visigoths are bascially pure goths that came from east-germany and scandonavia while the ostgoths are baltic, finnic, sami, lettish and anyone else that formed the gothic confederation after arriving in the black sea area. The split of the goths was created there.

Complete personal speculation not based on any sort of genetics evidence. while you are entitled to your personal opinion, its also completely irrelevant to this thread.


- The lombards never went that far east from east germany before heading to italy. They where merged into the indigenous ligurian people as well as celts.
I clearly do not see why you ignore the fact that the lombards are germanics

I am effectively repeating the same things to even respond to this re-tread of the same arguments, which I will not fall into.
The U-152 Y-dna is at its highest point in the Lombardic conquest lands. We have accounts I have posted here already of these Ligurian populations in particular fleeing out of there land to the Byzantines at the approach of the Lombardic host..

Thus, unless they eventually moved back to become voluntary agricultural slaves, this U-152 majority population cant be Ligurian or ancient Italo-Celtic based, because the Lombards remark on the depopulation of the lands that they simply walk in and take, with the exception of a few fortified cities..

Vallicanus
06-02-12, 00:05
You have your answer below, I cant believe I forgot to respond to such a incredibly ridiculous and - I will have to say- SHAMEFUL post.
Citing phrenology as a valid population genetics factor in 2012 basically is beyond shocking in its utter preposterousness. I shall not bother to respond to you in the future after such a outrageous reliance on a hungarian phrenologist cracking open ancient grave sites and contaminating them for this totally wasted purpose.



You are not paying attention where I cited Lombard sources saying that these elements came for booty, not to settle a homeland in most cases.. A lot of alien populations invade a locality for gain/slaves/loot in this era, and few actually move their families and civilian populations there to live permanently.



[citation please]



what is your twisted agenda in manically replying to me?
If I am fully wrong and you are completely right, why bother to constantly respond to me on a issue that you are merely a dispassionate observer? Why is it so compelling to you to need to countermand my opinion to the degree you cite wackjob phrenologists with skull measurements that would get laughed out of any genetics conference?

what agenda do you have?

I have never read a more deluded and incompetent series of posts as yours but then you are a pathetic Nordicist if you believe modern Northern Italians are mainly descended from Longobards and Ostrogoths.

You go from one insane remark to another because all your "evidence" has been shown to be ludicrous.

You cannot even distinguish between phrenology and craniology while your linguistic, historical and genetic viewpoints on the Lombards are the biggest pile of nonsense I have ever seen on the web.

Stick to American history if you know so little about European history.

I have a copy of Paul Deacon's "History of the Lombards" and you seem to know nothing about that period at all. Paul was a great stylist and storyteller but not a reliable historian for the origins of the Lombards or the invasion of Italy period.

So there is no reliable historical proof that any part of Northern Italy was so empty that the Longobards/Lombards or Germanic groups generally were a majority and no recent genetic study suggests such nonsense.

Vallicanus
06-02-12, 00:50
Plus the fact that I suspect Corinth has never visited Northern Italy and never seen how Southern European (confirmed by all recent genetic studies) most of the population is.

Maybe he believes they got their usually dark hair and medium to dark complexions from the followers of Alboin and his Lombard hordes filling up empty land.

Ludicrous, shameful and trollish.

spongetaro
06-02-12, 01:05
Thus, unless they eventually moved back to become voluntary agricultural slaves, this U-152 majority population cant be Ligurian or ancient Italo-Celtic based, because the Lombards remark on the depopulation of the lands that they simply walk in and take, with the exception of a few fortified cities..

Why are you trying to find unbelivebal stories about U152 in Northern Italy originating with the Lombards while the U152 highest variance is just on the other side of the Alpes in South East France.
I'd like to have your explanation for R1b U152 frequency in Corsica. Is it Lombardic really?

Vallicanus
06-02-12, 01:09
Why are you trying to find unbelivebal stories about U152 in Northern Italy originating with the Lombards while the U152 highest variance is just on the other side of theh Alpes in South East France.
I'd like to have your explanation for R1b U152 frequency in Corsica. Is it Lombardic really?


I'm with you.

Apparently Corinth thinks this way.

I suspect he is of North Italian extraction. Many such posters have an unfortunate fixation with Nordic/Germanic ancestry which simply DOES NOT CORRESPOND with the truth either in phenotype or in genotype.

(Apologies to any North Italians who are not so inclined)

Taranis
06-02-12, 01:24
You have your answer below, I cant believe I forgot to respond to such a incredibly ridiculous and - I will have to say- SHAMEFUL post.
Citing phrenology as a valid population genetics factor in 2012 basically is beyond shocking in its utter preposterousness. I shall not bother to respond to you in the future after such a outrageous reliance on a hungarian phrenologist cracking open ancient grave sites and contaminating them for this totally wasted purpose.

You are not paying attention where I cited Lombard sources saying that these elements came for booty, not to settle a homeland in most cases.. A lot of alien populations invade a locality for gain/slaves/loot in this era, and few actually move their families and civilian populations there to live permanently.

[citation please]

what is your twisted agenda in manically replying to me?
If I am fully wrong and you are completely right, why bother to constantly respond to me on a issue that you are merely a dispassionate observer? Why is it so compelling to you to need to countermand my opinion to the degree you cite wackjob phrenologists with skull measurements that would get laughed out of any genetics conference?

what agenda do you have?


I wanted to comment on this monstrosity above, and forgot to earlier.

I honestly do not know which is more horrifying.. in 2012..

1)CITING a phrenologist as a scientific source who cracked open and contaminated with modern DNA irreplaceable ancient burials so that he could 'play' at handling/measuring the skulls.. a practice in place dating back well into the middle ages at least, completely VALUELESS in any way, shape or form (EVEN THEN) and now utterly meaningless in a time of modern y-dna and mtdna population results..

2)or the fact that so-called "authorities" in Hungary gave this absolute idiot the permission to crack open and contaminate rare ancient burials for his nonsensical skull-measuring (phrenology) that is absolutely and completely valueless, even if it were not made obsolete by modern DNA science..

IMHO, what Kiszely was actually looking for was evidence to eliminate asiatic/mongol ancestry in precursor "Hungarian" populations.. for specific Hungarian national reasons, and to do so he forever contaminated and desecrated rare burials to serve totally unrelated ethnic/racial purposes of the time.. and sadly the Hungarian govt went along and sanctioned this.

To cite this monstrosity with any sort of seriousness or reverence, instead of with disgust and shame, on a DNA-based board is truly beyond any sort of explanation. What Kiszely did is not only of no value to any population genetics or science, it actually was a totally necessary and deliberate act of contamination against ancient DNA that boggles the mind.


I have never read a more deluded and incompetent series of posts as yours but then you are a pathetic Nordicist if you believe modern Northern Italians are mainly descended from Longobards and Ostrogoths.

You go from one insane remark to another because all your "evidence" has been shown to be ludicrous.

You cannot even distinguish between phrenology and craniology while your linguistic, historical and genetic viewpoints on the Lombards are the biggest pile of nonsense I have ever seen on the web.

Stick to American history if you know so little about European history.

I have a copy of Paul Deacon's "History of the Lombards" and you seem to know nothing about that period at all. Paul was a great stylist and storyteller but not a reliable historian for the origins of the Lombards or the invasion of Italy period.

So there is no reliable historical proof that any part of Northern Italy was so empty that the Longobards/Lombards or Germanic groups generally were a majority and no recent genetic study suggests such nonsense.

Gentlemen, please, mind your language. That rudeness of yours was totally uncalled for.

MOESAN
06-02-12, 17:13
I wanted to comment on this monstrosity above, and forgot to earlier. I honestly do not know which is more horrifying.. in 2012.. 1)CITING a phrenologist as a scientific source who cracked open and contaminated with modern DNA irreplaceable ancient burials so that he could 'play' at handling/measuring the skulls.. a practice in place dating back well into the middle ages at least, completely VALUELESS in any way, shape or form (EVEN THEN) and now utterly meaningless in a time of modern y-dna and mtdna population results.. 2)or the fact that so-called "authorities" in Hungary gave this absolute idiot the permission to crack open and contaminate rare ancient burials for his nonsensical skull-measuring (phrenology) that is absolutely and completely valueless, even if it were not made obsolete by modern DNA science.. IMHO, what Kiszely was actually looking for was evidence to eliminate asiatic/mongol ancestry in precursor "Hungarian" populations.. for specific Hungarian national reasons, and to do so he forever contaminated and desecrated rare burials to serve totally unrelated ethnic/racial purposes of the time.. and sadly the Hungarian govt went along and sanctioned this. To cite this monstrosity with any sort of seriousness or reverence, instead of with disgust and shame, on a DNA-based board is truly beyond any sort of explanation. What Kiszely did is not only of no value to any population genetics or science, it actually was a totally necessary and deliberate act of contamination against ancient DNA that boggles the mind. BEFORE ANWER YOU ON A POINT A CONFESS AN HUGE ERROR: when I spoke about my huge surprise concerning North Bashkirs (Myre's surveys): NO R-U106? North baskirland: Nb 70 / R81b: 53: 1 before M269, total M269: 52 2 L23 and 50 U152 it seams a "foreign import" among this only Baskir group - for CORINTH: what is naive is deny any kind of worth to metrics (and other phenotypical means) studies: they have to be done very carefully and to be put in relation with chronology, climate and nurture : way of life - but they can bring some interesting facts about populations and can be linked closer to autosomal DNA than can do the only Y & mt DNA ligneages - in history-anthropology EVERY WAY OF APPROACH ARE VALUABLE - what they need is to be run one together - and don't forget that DNA is changing with time, slightly or abruptly according to the concerned genes and their roles - and a gene don't speak to explain where it is coming from, so phenotypes (caused in a big part by genes) tell us something about history of Man in a fork of 5000-10000 years - its repartition changes by itself but not as quickly as some autosomal genes and it escapes partially a male elite selection better than does Y-DNA $- my belief: the bulk of these Lombards was of a North European "facture" but they surely brought with them some other types found in other populations - in PRESENT DAY North Italy (not the suburbs of big towns) the impact of different northern types are stronger than in central & South Italy "genuine" populations - but THEY ARE NOT STRONGER THERE than in more Eastern North Italy (but there too some of germanic origin people (BUT not Lombardic, seamingly) were send after during more recent historic times: Bavarians according to someones) - AS A WHOLE these types are an important but not dominant part in the present Lombardia and not all of them came there with germanic diverse people - a few ones could have come there with Celts (among whom these phenotypes were present but in a very lighter proportion than among Germanics, and maybe with other Y-DNA repartitions) - I prefer link the most of this phenotypes to bearers of Y-R-U106 and Y-I1 (plus some Y-R1a different from the ones of South Italy (

corinth
06-02-12, 19:19
Why are you trying to find unbelivebal stories about U152 in Northern Italy originating with the Lombards while the U152 highest variance is just on the other side of the Alpes in South East France.
I'd like to have your explanation for R1b U152 frequency in Corsica. Is it Lombardic really?

Yes.



The island became disputed between the Ostrogoths (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostrogoths), Roman foederati (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foederati) who were settled in the lands along the Riviera (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Riviera), and the Vandals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandals).
Saracen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saracen) raiders began to prey on Corsica, leadingLiutprand the Lombard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liutprand_the_Lombard) to invade circa 725 CE to preempt Saracen designs.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Corsica#cite_note-2)
Corsica remained with the Lombard kingdom even AFTER the Frankish conquest, by which time Lombard landholders and churches had established a significant presence on the island.

Do you contest this, or was this a rhetorical question?

Vallicanus
06-02-12, 19:29
Yes.




Do you contest this, or was this a rhetorical question?

Many of us contest this.

The Lombards were a tiny elite in Corsica and a small minority all over Italy.

That is why Corsicans and North Italians are usually dark-haired and owe little to the Longobards either in genotype or phenotype.

corinth
06-02-12, 20:00
BEFORE ANWER YOU ON A POINT A CONFESS AN HUGE ERROR: when I spoke about my huge surprise concerning North Bashkirs (Myre's surveys): NO R-U106? North baskirland: Nb 70 / R81b: 53: 1 before M269, total M269: 52 2 L23 and 50 U152 it seams a "foreign import" among this only Baskir group -

There is no way to tell, honestly, if the eastern U-152 is-

1)a remnant Scythian/Getae native europid presence who are in traditional lands that are in fact within historical Scythian/Getic lands-

2)a relocated foreign import europid population(if so it seems to predate the rise of Islam and would likely denote western europeans captured and relocated by Hunnic or Mongol captors)

While one cannot discount the known fact that a lot of enslaved europeans were moved east by Hunnic captors, its just as possible and fits within my theory concerning the Getic/Getae/Scythian populations that this is a remnant population that managed to hang-on after asiatic conquest, probably because they were not any longer Europid in appearance due to maternal asiatic/hunnic ancestry,
and thus did not stand out until modern Y-dna testing from any other local Hunnic-turkic genetics populations.

While either above scenario could be the case, its likely that some small, localized (racially-maternally intermixed) reservoir population of europid Y-line natives would still exist even if the majority of the host population were destroyed or migrated west, and this Bashkortostan population would be that concealed remnant.


for CORINTH: what is naive is deny any kind of worth to metrics (and other phenotypical means) studies: they have to be done very carefully and to be put in relation with chronology, climate and nurture : way of life - but they can bring some interesting facts about populations and can be linked closer to autosomal DNA than can do the only Y & mt DNA ligneages - in history-anthropology EVERY WAY OF APPROACH ARE VALUABLE -

Trying to resurrect Phrenology or give it credit as a valid (beyond racial conclusions = mongoloid, europid, negroid) pursuit that is remotely worthy of desecrating and polluting rare ancient burials so that a clown can take measurements of the skulls, NO it is not in remote way a positive, valuable or rational usage or exploitation of these ancient artifacts or remains.

It is a schlock-quackery that is rooted (and should be left to) in the 19th century, and is fully nonsensical. Any phenotype promoter, or person asserting that they can divine anything beyond the assignment to the three basic racial groups or some bone-related diseases (leprosy ) from examining skulls is a complete and total fraud, who is perpetuating something akin to palm-reading or fortune-telling.

There are many black americans for instance (33%) who are in a non-african paternal Hg.. Almost all of these persons have a negroid phenotype, and appear from and Phrenology to be Negroid.
There are many of these black americans in Hg I1 and Hg R1b in particular, which did not come from a african male ancestor, even though the phenotype of the person possessing the Hg is black-skinned and of a Negroid bone/facial/skull structure. This is because- over hundreds of years of slavery, the african females were giving birth to children often fathered by the white slave owner, who was R1b or I1 paternal Hg.

To look at this candidate the way that some in this thread irrationally do, we would need to assert that the I1 in these black americans most likely comes from a negroid male paternal ancestor who brought the Hg with him from a African population, since the primary phenotype in these persons is Negroid.
The reality is, the Hg will remain perpetually, while a fair complexion or other recessive traits will be lost after only one generation of intermixture..

For the reason, judging a population simply and primarily by its phenotype and asserting the prevailing phenotype is indicative of the paternal ancestry does not work- especially for Europids with recessive traits.


AS A WHOLE these types are an important but not dominant part in the present Lombardia and not all of them came there with germanic diverse people - a few ones could have come there with Celts (among whom these phenotypes were present but in a very lighter proportion than among Germanics, and maybe with other Y-DNA repartitions) - I prefer link the most of this phenotypes to bearers of Y-R-U106 and Y-I1 (plus some Y-R1a different from the ones of South Italy (

One would expect to see significant U-152 in Romanian populations if it were a founding element in Italic populations. In fact, Romanians do not possess more than 1% of U-152, which is a immigrant-intermixure degree of introgression.
We have historical documentation of the Lombards taking possession of a region that was depleted in population by the Gothic wars, which consumed all the food resources and led to starvation in the area along with the war dead,

it was then hit with at least two severe plagues that were concentrated within Italy and do not cross into the German lands,

most of the (surviving) population fled their homes as the Lombards approached and ran to the byzantine south, or to ravenna.

This was a good call on their part, because most of the catholic church leadership and many civilians were mass-murdered by the arian-christian Lombardic host.

Next, the Lombards are able over hundreds of years to repell repeated attempts by the Byzantines to sack and defeat them, which was assisted by local Italic populations.. this means the breeding population of 'Lombards' was great enough to meet the superpower of its time and completely defeat them on multiple occasions.

Lombard males would be continually introgressing into the Italic gene pool as they have free access to Italic females, and would over hundreds of years be producing offspring either intentionally or unintentionally with them, while Italic males are restricted by law from marrying or consorting with 'Lombardic' females-
This is a 'prerfect storm' for the Y-line genetics of the Lombardic population to come to a majority of the resident population, while the Italic Y-line genetics are deliberately suppressed.

Vallicanus
06-02-12, 21:03
Lombards brought R1b-U106 not U-152 to northern Italy.

U-152 developed in and around the French and Swiss Alps and dates from pre-Roman times.

We have no RELIABLE written evidence that northern Italy was depopulated and certainly Paul the Deacon's charming History of the Lombards was unreliable about the origins and early history of his tribe and much else.

Most ancient writers relied on rhetorical effects (exaggeration usually) and their chronicles have no scientific value outsde the sphere of war and politics. Most lived in a closeted world well away from the poor peasant or artisan.

I repeat cranial anthropology is not phrenology!

Do not misrepresent the scholars of earlier generations who devoted their life to anthropology.

Even the latest genome-wide studies refute the fact that Northern Italy has a large Germanic element.

GloomyGonzales
06-02-12, 23:10
There is no way to tell, honestly, if the eastern U-152 is-

1)a remnant Scythian/Getae native europid presence who are in traditional lands that are in fact within historical Scythian/Getic lands-
2)a relocated foreign import europid population(if so it seems to predate the rise of Islam and would likely denote western europeans captured and relocated by Hunnic or Mongol captors)


There's no need to make up so complicated theories to explain presence of U152 in some very small group of Perm Bashkirs(only 20k men). Those people were resettled by Ivan Terrible from Kazan in 16th century. Kazan was a trade-hub on the Volga trade route from North Europe to West Asia so no wonder that some trader from Europe with R1B-U152 settled in this city. By the way Kazan is the only place in Russia where a guy with Scandinavian R1a-Z284 was found.

If you really want to know the truth about gene pool of Italians in relation to other European nations I recommend you to read the paper discussing genetic and geography of European people.

I can't post links so run in google "Genes mirror geography within Europe".

corinth
07-02-12, 06:02
There's no need to make up so complicated theories to explain presence of U152 in some very small group of Perm Bashkirs(only 20k men). Those people were resettled by Ivan Terrible from Kazan in 16th century. Kazan was a trade-hub on the Volga trade route from North Europe to West Asia so no wonder that some trader from Europe with R1B-U152 settled in this city. By the way Kazan is the only place in Russia where a guy with Scandinavian R1a-Z284 was found.

When posting a theory,.. do the decency of what I did.. concede it is merely your theory.

My theory of a remnant of the once intact europid known historic populations that inhabited that area before its mongolization, turkiczation, and then slavization is "complicated",
and you imagined western euro captives who prospered after being dropped to subsist within a Islamic tribal state by Ivan, the Terrible makes sense?

If these are settlers gently relocated from the fall of Kazan, then there should be plentiful U-152 SNP R1b in modern Tatarstan.. right?

Oh, thats right, there isnt any R1b- U-152 SNP or otherwise- there .. Was a nice theory for the three seconds it lasted.


If you really want to know the truth about gene pool of Italians in relation to other European nations I recommend you to read the paper discussing genetic and geography of European people.

I can't post links so run in google "Genes mirror geography within Europe".

As I said before, we have a Roman-ized male Y-line source population for comparative purposes.. Its called the Romanians. NO U-152 to speak of, and only 16% of the Y-lines are in R1b of any sort.

While the Romanians clearly encorporate Ilyrian (I2) male ancestry, and Slavic introgression (R1a) the proximity to Italy and the known settlement of entire legions within Romania is pretty clear indication that-
with 1% U-152 in Romanians,
Ancient Italics/Romans do not show any evidence of carrying this as any significant or inherent part of their Y-line gene pool, as they were unable to pass it on to a neighbor state that they are known to have intensely colonized.
We find U-152 at elevated levels in places that Lombardic power held sway for many hundreds of years- we do not find it in Italic stand-in populations like Romanians at any meaningful pct, indicating a arrival from a non-italic source.

Vallicanus
07-02-12, 10:33
Your history is very poor.

When the Goths invaded Roman Dacia in the 3rd century, most of the Romanised population fled south of the Danube to safety.

Most "Roman" settlers in Dacia came from all over the Roman Empire and few were from Italy itself. Even surviving Dacians were absorbed so your Italy-Romania link is invalid.

zanipolo
07-02-12, 11:41
When posting a theory,.. do the decency of what I did.. concede it is merely your theory.

My theory of a remnant of the once intact europid known historic populations that inhabited that area before its mongolization, turkiczation, and then slavization is "complicated",
and you imagined western euro captives who prospered after being dropped to subsist within a Islamic tribal state by Ivan, the Terrible makes sense?

If these are settlers gently relocated from the fall of Kazan, then there should be plentiful U-152 SNP R1b in modern Tatarstan.. right?

Oh, thats right, there isnt any R1b- U-152 SNP or otherwise- there .. Was a nice theory for the three seconds it lasted.



As I said before, we have a Roman-ized male Y-line source population for comparative purposes.. Its called the Romanians. NO U-152 to speak of, and only 16% of the Y-lines are in R1b of any sort.

While the Romanians clearly encorporate Ilyrian (I2) male ancestry, and Slavic introgression (R1a) the proximity to Italy and the known settlement of entire legions within Romania is pretty clear indication that-
with 1% U-152 in Romanians,
Ancient Italics/Romans do not show any evidence of carrying this as any significant or inherent part of their Y-line gene pool, as they were unable to pass it on to a neighbor state that they are known to have intensely colonized.
We find U-152 at elevated levels in places that Lombardic power held sway for many hundreds of years- we do not find it in Italic stand-in populations like Romanians at any meaningful pct, indicating a arrival from a non-italic source.

i know where you got your theory on this lombardic issues, from Wiki as well as cavalli book, but as stated other germanic people entered norhern italy after the goths and lombards, like the swabians, ottonians etc etc, but the lombardic was too few to tilt the dna, .....besides they had bavarians to condend with in the alps

The history and geography of human genes By Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza, Paolo Menozzi, Alberto Piazza

zanipolo
07-02-12, 11:51
While the Romanians clearly encorporate Ilyrian (I2) male ancestry, and Slavic introgression (R1a) the proximity to Italy and the known settlement of entire legions within Romania is pretty clear indication that-
with 1% U-152 in Romanians,
Ancient Italics/Romans do not show any evidence of carrying this as any significant or inherent part of their Y-line gene pool, as they were unable to pass it on to a neighbor state that they are known to have intensely colonized.
We find U-152 at elevated levels in places that Lombardic power held sway for many hundreds of years- we do not find it in Italic stand-in populations like Romanians at any meaningful pct, indicating a arrival from a non-italic source.

firstly, romanians are not illyrian, being a romanian who is romaniazed means knowing latin and roman customs, you do not get DNA by learning latin. romanians are ancient dacians.

if the goths and lombardic brought u-152, then why is there little u-152 in dlamatia as the goths stayed there a long time?

history of lombardy is roughly this
late bronze age it was ligurian
around 800BC it became etruscan
around 550BC celts of the boii tribe took it
later romans owned it
then barbarian invaders ( goths, vandals etc )
then Lombards
then swabians and ottonians ( actually ottonians where mainly NE italy)
bavarians and some franks

Vallicanus
07-02-12, 12:37
Also if you study the map on the U152.org site the frequency of R1b U-152 decreases eastwards in both northern and central Italy. Southern Italy has less than most of France.

The highest concentration is towards the North-West from Lombardy down to western Tuscany and Corsica.

North-east Italy and east-central Italy has a much lower frequency as does the south.

corinth
08-02-12, 03:02
i know where you got your theory on this lombardic issues, from Wiki as well as cavalli book,

I am not familiar nor interested in either of the attributions you are assuming I gained my ideas from. These are my own opinion, not gleaned from what someone else told me or posited- I have said repeatedly what others here have not, which is that the verdict will not come from me or some other theorist, it will come from ancient Y-results, because the history of this region and the limited range of U-152 do not allow any definitive conclusions to be asserted as fact, in the way that some other Hg/SNP with in-situ 'donor' populations permit.
The limited regions in which U-152 is significant have too complicated and tumultuous a history.
The one thing I have noted is that the obvious consideration that the potential Lombardic period attribution would obligate consideration of a localised SNP that is localized at its markedly highest pct within this specific range,
have been dealt short shrift and swept aside with extreme prejudice, and this is simply not supported by what little is known of the eastern migrants, the Lombardic composition, or any ancient Y dna to base it upon.
The sole basis for without any discussion automatically disregarding U-152 as "lombardic" is a unrealistic prejudice that any lombardic y-dna has to be I1, R1a, or U-106, which is not based on a scientific or supported argument but upon a LOT OF ASSUMPTIONS.


but as stated other germanic people entered norhern italy after the goths and lombards, like the swabians, ottonians etc etc, but the lombardic was too few to tilt the dna

The "Lombardic" population was not "too few" to succesfully hold a large region of land that was surrounded and under near constant attack by Slavs, Italics, Byzantine armies, Saracens.. etc..
You are again making a personal assumption that is not supported by the fact that enough Lombardic fighting males exist within a breeding population of Lombards to constantly confound and defeat the super-power Byzantines.

zanipolo
08-02-12, 08:31
I am not familiar nor interested in either of the attributions you are assuming I gained my ideas from. These are my own opinion, not gleaned from what someone else told me or posited- I have said repeatedly what others here have not, which is that the verdict will not come from me or some other theorist, it will come from ancient Y-results, because the history of this region and the limited range of U-152 do not allow any definitive conclusions to be asserted as fact, in the way that some other Hg/SNP with in-situ 'donor' populations permit.
The limited regions in which U-152 is significant have too complicated and tumultuous a history.
The one thing I have noted is that the obvious consideration that the potential Lombardic period attribution would obligate consideration of a localised SNP that is localized at its markedly highest pct within this specific range,
have been dealt short shrift and swept aside with extreme prejudice, and this is simply not supported by what little is known of the eastern migrants, the Lombardic composition, or any ancient Y dna to base it upon.
The sole basis for without any discussion automatically disregarding U-152 as "lombardic" is a unrealistic prejudice that any lombardic y-dna has to be I1, R1a, or U-106, which is not based on a scientific or supported argument but upon a LOT OF ASSUMPTIONS.



The "Lombardic" population was not "too few" to succesfully hold a large region of land that was surrounded and under near constant attack by Slavs, Italics, Byzantine armies, Saracens.. etc..
You are again making a personal assumption that is not supported by the fact that enough Lombardic fighting males exist within a breeding population of Lombards to constantly confound and defeat the super-power Byzantines.

firstly, I comment in this froum with ZERO nationalistic ideas because its useless and besides the borders today are not the borders of yesterday.

I never mentioned that I recall what I thought the lombardic dna was, my theory is that all tribes where already mixed in DNA.

The lombardic people that migrated, numbered according to historians a max of 500000 and these also incorporated macromanni, quadi and osi tribes. Historians say the ventic peopl in NE Italy in the year 520 BC had 50 cities and 1.5 MIllion people. The celts in lombardy invaded with 200000 and did not touch the venetics because of there numbers. we are already into very high numbers which increased under roman rule. how do you cater for 55% of north italy as R1b U-152 today

also note the ligurians and some other italic tribes called themselves lombardic after the lombard invasions even though they where not

Vallicanus
08-02-12, 10:14
Plus all recent genetic studies show that all of Italy INCLUDING NORTHERN ITALY has less North European admixture than anywhere else west of the Balkans.

Corinth is just some sort of Padanian nationalist and his historical knowledge is superficial.

I bet he is of North Italian extraction.

zanipolo
08-02-12, 11:57
Plus all recent genetic studies show that all of Italy INCLUDING NORTHERN ITALY has less North European admixture than anywhere else west of the Balkans.

Corinth is just some sort of Padanian nationalist and his historical knowledge is superficial.

I bet he is of North Italian extraction.

i do not understand your comments, I am of north italian extraction ( traced family back to 1744 so far ) , i do not believe in the lombadic padanian ( from the padus , roman word means from the po valley ) system, but i do believe there is a huge difference between north italians and the other italians.
i believe north italian where alpine people originally , mixed with gallic, venetic, ligurian, illyrian, frankish, gothic, raeti, germanic, celtic, helvetic and much later some slavic and french peoples. basically a "soup of cultures".
As the ancient Greeks stated, Italy starts at the toe and finishes at the Po, the rest are barbarians.

maybe Corinth is , but does it matter?

MOESAN
08-02-12, 15:24
Many of us contest this.

The Lombards were a tiny elite in Corsica and a small minority all over Italy.

That is why Corsicans and North Italians are usually dark-haired and owe little to the Longobards either in genotype or phenotype.


I agree with the first part of this post but I like "castrate the lice" ('spazhañ laou') as we say in breton:
things are not always so simple (without offense to you) - yet Corsicans are a mixt where dark pigmentation overruns the ligh one, but is very lighter than Sardigna for instance, or than Portugal, South Italy or others mediterranean regions - genuine (before internal emigration of workers from Mezzogiorno, very recent) people of Lombardia are lighter yet than Corsicans, even if dark is commoner than light - some relatively reliable but based on the same criteria %s for comparison:
Corsica : dark hues: 52-55% / middle: 41-43% / light (blond): 4-5% [red: 0,6-0,8%]
Sardigna: " " : 80-82% / " : 17-19% / " " : < 1% [red: 0,3-0,5%]
Lombardia: " " : 38-40% / " : 49-50% / " " : 10-11% [red: 1,0%-1,2%]
I suspect on small sample that center Corsica is a little bit mor often dark - the same for some regions of Lombardia (according to scholars works because I lack precise data for that: maybe near Pô districts occupied by Roman Empire men) - what is not without weight, it seams that North-Eastern Italy is a very litlle bit more often light than Lombardia - the less 'blond' being Piemonte...
even staying with pigmentation, it appears to me that in these rough categories of hues, black hair is commoner among Corsicans, very-dark-brown among Lombardians - and dark brown is commoner among Corsicans opposed to middle-light brown commoner among Lombardians (and other North italians) -
put along with cranial index, it makes a big enough difference between Corsicans an Lombardians -
$: light hairs in Corsica SEAMS TO ME (a bet) linked more to several demic light contacts with Liguria and Toscana, and other people of other parts of North Italy but not the result of an unique big impact of Lombards or ANY other ruling people... A Corsican in Paris told me that some rare villages of Corsica was populated by Austrians soldiers or colons about the XVIII/XIX°C. I'm not aware of that and it will be well if someone could send some data on that)
I SUPPOSE (waiting more downstream SNP of it) that rhe most of the MALE presence linked to Y-R-U152 in Corsica is from the Bell Beaker period :Presently I don't believe that this SNP is linked to the first B.B. bearers but i think this B.B. "teachers" had a big success among previoulsy settled populations rich for R-U152 (between Switzerland, Bavaria, E-France and N/N-W Italy - sure the Genova ruling period could have send somones else to Corsica as the Lombardic period but not the bulk of it (even I think Riviera is not the better for Y-R1b whatever the SNP... But i am not a Corsica specialist at all concerning History!
If you have more items about the Italy's question
read you again, maybe

Vallicanus
08-02-12, 19:10
i do not understand your comments, I am of north italian extraction ( traced family back to 1744 so far ) , i do not believe in the lombadic padanian ( from the padus , roman word means from the po valley ) system, but i do believe there is a huge difference between north italians and the other italians.
i believe north italian where alpine people originally , mixed with gallic, venetic, ligurian, illyrian, frankish, gothic, raeti, germanic, celtic, helvetic and much later some slavic and french peoples. basically a "soup of cultures".
As the ancient Greeks stated, Italy starts at the toe and finishes at the Po, the rest are barbarians.

maybe Corinth is , but does it matter?


Don't worry, I'm not attacking North Italians.

I just don't see the close link trumpeted by Corinth between R1b-U152 and the Lombards or any other Germanic invaders of Italy.

Corinth seems to think that Lombard invaders were numerous and introduced most of the Y chromosomes in medieval northern Italy even though NE Italy has no more U-152 than most of the south (see U152.org site maps).

Yetos
08-02-12, 20:25
Your history is very poor.

When the Goths invaded Roman Dacia in the 3rd century, most of the Romanised population fled south of the Danube to safety.

Most "Roman" settlers in Dacia came from all over the Roman Empire and few were from Italy itself. Even surviving Dacians were absorbed so your Italy-Romania link is invalid.



How sure are you,

it seems like Goths were autochthonus in Dacia, and from spread to North and West,

Taranis
08-02-12, 20:30
How sure are you,

it seems like Goths were autochthonus in Dacia, and from spread to North and West,

Yetos, stop confusing the Getae (a Dacian people) and the Goths (a Germanic people). It's clear that the Goths only arrived in Dacia during the migration period.

corinth
08-02-12, 23:28
Yetos, stop confusing the Getae (a Dacian people) and the Goths (a Germanic people). It's clear that the Goths only arrived in Dacia during the migration period.

He is not confusing anything. I showed you the list of half a dozen ancient historians of the time who all used the terms Getae and Goth interchangeably for the same population. These goth/getae are also sharing the same historic territories.
The question becomes whether we are wrong in assuming these conflations of tribal names are mistakes, or whether these ancient attributions were made in error.

This is why I earlier said that I do not think the Goths or Lombards, who share a common migration myth, even set foot in Scandinavia. I think they adopted common myths to explain who they were, as "lost tribes" that related them to the obviously culturally and linguisticallly similar populations to the west that they come into contact with as the asiatic onslaught forces the surviving, free populations of Getae/Goths to the west.

The remarks that the "getae and dacians share the same language" is not really meaningful, given that the lombards in Italy also cooperate with Slavic and Avar tribes on regular occasions, meaning that at least some portions of one or both groups are Bi-lingual and able to concert actions with one another.

The native or internal language of some or all portions of the Getae may be a eastern germanic-related tongue, while in cooperation with the Dacian populations they used the lingua-franca of that population.

There is a trail through thrace and greece of U-152 that is quite noticeable today, particularly with known gothic introgression and settlements in these areas, and no history of Ligurians.

Vallicanus
09-02-12, 00:34
All speculation and pseudo-history and not a trace of evidence.

U-152 was a mutation that arose around the Swiss Alps about 3,500 years ago.

corinth
09-02-12, 06:37
All speculation and pseudo-history and not a trace of evidence.

U-152 was a mutation that arose around the Swiss Alps about 3,500 years ago.

Guess you can take that up with Maciamo then, genius.



In my opinion, the Bashkirs R1b descend directly from the Bronze-age Proto-Indo-Europeans. The only place where both M73 and M269 are both common is around the Caucasus and Anatolia. Based on my theory of the PIE moving to the Pontic steppes in the Neolithic, the first steppe invaders would have belonged to both M73 and M269, although the latter would have been much more dominant. It is possible that all the subclades as far as S116 and even S28/U152 developed in the steppes before migrating to Europe. The Bashkirs could represent the last leftovers from these PIE R1b, who would later been overwhelmed by neighbouring R1a from further north and east.

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?26878-Bashkirs-What-Subclades-of-R1b-Were-They

ancient Bakshir proverb=
"He who put foot in mouth, regret taste of shoe"

Vallicanus
09-02-12, 10:21
All your verbiage does not link U-152 to the Lombards.

Still waiting for sound evidence that U-152 in northern or ( rather more) north-west Italy is of any origin other than what 152.0rg and Maciamo state.

corinth
09-02-12, 19:39
All your verbiage does not link U-152 to the Lombards.

Still waiting for sound evidence that U-152 in northern or ( rather more) north-west Italy is of any origin other than what 152.0rg and Maciamo state.



Originally Posted by Maciamo
In my opinion, the Bashkirs R1b descend directly from the Bronze-age Proto-Indo-Europeans. The only place where both M73 and M269 are both common is around the Caucasus and Anatolia. Based on my theory of the PIE moving to the Pontic steppes in the Neolithic, the first steppe invaders would have belonged to both M73 and M269, although the latter would have been much more dominant. It is possible that all the subclades as far as S116 and even S28/U152 developed in the steppes before migrating to Europe. The Bashkirs could represent the last leftovers from these PIE R1b, who would later been overwhelmed by neighbouring R1a from further north and east.

you are a whining spammer. tell your complaints to maciamo with his statement that is identical in opinion to my own steppe origin theory.

Taranis
09-02-12, 20:21
Guess you can take that up with Maciamo then, genius.

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?26878-Bashkirs-What-Subclades-of-R1b-Were-They

ancient Bakshir proverb=
"He who put foot in mouth, regret taste of shoe"


you are a whining spammer. tell your complaints to maciamo with his statement that is identical in opinion to my own steppe origin theory.

I've warned you more than once for your rude and provocative behaviour towards other board members. This time around you get points for an infraction.


All your verbiage does not link U-152 to the Lombards.

Still waiting for sound evidence that U-152 in northern or ( rather more) north-west Italy is of any origin other than what 152.0rg and Maciamo state.

And there's no reason for you to provoke others, either. Please don't do that.

MOESAN
09-02-12, 21:19
There is no way to tell, honestly, if the eastern U-152 is-

1)a remnant Scythian/Getae native europid presence who are in traditional lands that are in fact within historical Scythian/Getic lands-

2)a relocated foreign import europid population(if so it seems to predate the rise of Islam and would likely denote western europeans captured and relocated by Hunnic or Mongol captors)

While one cannot discount the known fact that a lot of enslaved europeans were moved east by Hunnic captors, its just as possible and fits within my theory concerning the Getic/Getae/Scythian populations that this is a remnant population that managed to hang-on after asiatic conquest, probably because they were not any longer Europid in appearance due to maternal asiatic/hunnic ancestry,
and thus did not stand out until modern Y-dna testing from any other local Hunnic-turkic genetics populations.

While either above scenario could be the case, its likely that some small, localized (racially-maternally intermixed) reservoir population of europid Y-line natives would still exist even if the majority of the host population were destroyed or migrated west, and this Bashkortostan population would be that concealed remnant.



Trying to resurrect Phrenology or give it credit as a valid (beyond racial conclusions = mongoloid, europid, negroid) pursuit that is remotely worthy of desecrating and polluting rare ancient burials so that a clown can take measurements of the skulls, NO it is not in remote way a positive, valuable or rational usage or exploitation of these ancient artifacts or remains.

It is a schlock-quackery that is rooted (and should be left to) in the 19th century, and is fully nonsensical. Any phenotype promoter, or person asserting that they can divine anything beyond the assignment to the three basic racial groups or some bone-related diseases (leprosy ) from examining skulls is a complete and total fraud, who is perpetuating something akin to palm-reading or fortune-telling.

There are many black americans for instance (33%) who are in a non-african paternal Hg.. Almost all of these persons have a negroid phenotype, and appear from and Phrenology to be Negroid.
There are many of these black americans in Hg I1 and Hg R1b in particular, which did not come from a african male ancestor, even though the phenotype of the person possessing the Hg is black-skinned and of a Negroid bone/facial/skull structure. This is because- over hundreds of years of slavery, the african females were giving birth to children often fathered by the white slave owner, who was R1b or I1 paternal Hg.

To look at this candidate the way that some in this thread irrationally do, we would need to assert that the I1 in these black americans most likely comes from a negroid male paternal ancestor who brought the Hg with him from a African population, since the primary phenotype in these persons is Negroid.
The reality is, the Hg will remain perpetually, while a fair complexion or other recessive traits will be lost after only one generation of intermixture..

For the reason, judging a population simply and primarily by its phenotype and asserting the prevailing phenotype is indicative of the paternal ancestry does not work- especially for Europids with recessive traits.



One would expect to see significant U-152 in Romanian populations if it were a founding element in Italic populations. In fact, Romanians do not possess more than 1% of U-152, which is a immigrant-intermixure degree of introgression.
We have historical documentation of the Lombards taking possession of a region that was depleted in population by the Gothic wars, which consumed all the food resources and led to starvation in the area along with the war dead,

it was then hit with at least two severe plagues that were concentrated within Italy and do not cross into the German lands,

most of the (surviving) population fled their homes as the Lombards approached and ran to the byzantine south, or to ravenna.

This was a good call on their part, because most of the catholic church leadership and many civilians were mass-murdered by the arian-christian Lombardic host.

Next, the Lombards are able over hundreds of years to repell repeated attempts by the Byzantines to sack and defeat them, which was assisted by local Italic populations.. this means the breeding population of 'Lombards' was great enough to meet the superpower of its time and completely defeat them on multiple occasions.

Lombard males would be continually introgressing into the Italic gene pool as they have free access to Italic females, and would over hundreds of years be producing offspring either intentionally or unintentionally with them, while Italic males are restricted by law from marrying or consorting with 'Lombardic' females-
This is a 'prerfect storm' for the Y-line genetics of the Lombardic population to come to a majority of the resident population, while the Italic Y-line genetics are deliberately suppressed.

Hi!
It is my last post to you
You did not put in your answer my whole explanation concerning the meaning of 'recessive' gene (gene that do not express himself everytime in association with others (and yet it is more complicated than that) # not obligatory a seldom gene or gene in way to disappear)
when skeletons changed, we have to search why: the answer is not always simple, it is true, but it is a fact and IT CAN VERY OFTEN signal demiC changes based on genetic changes, whatever the names you give to them... (they are for me ONLY a argument among others maybe stronger
You do not untderstand the links between genotype and phenotype
I am tired - I am not laughing at you even if a prefer my thoughts FOR THE MOMENT - they can change (and the Bashkirs could be an element or that when I know more about them)
I note that you was kind enough with me, more than with others forumers - just a little disprising about sciences you know nothing deep about them and their evolution...

Vallicanus
09-02-12, 21:41
The likely steppe origin of R1b-U152 does not prove a link to the Lombards.

corinth
11-02-12, 00:18
Hi!
It is my last post to you
You did not put in your answer my whole explanation concerning the meaning of 'recessive' gene (gene that do not express himself everytime in association with others (and yet it is more complicated than that) # not obligatory a seldom gene or gene in way to disappear)
when skeletons changed, we have to search why: the answer is not always simple, it is true, but it is a fact and IT CAN VERY OFTEN signal demiC changes based on genetic changes, whatever the names you give to them... (they are for me ONLY a argument among others maybe stronger
You do not untderstand the links between genotype and phenotype
I am tired - I am not laughing at you even if a prefer my thoughts FOR THE MOMENT - they can change (and the Bashkirs could be an element or that when I know more about them)
I note that you was kind enough with me, more than with others forumers - just a little disprising about sciences you know nothing deep about them and their evolution...

when I use the term "recessive" I mean it in the mendellian sense.

A northern europid phenotype is 'recessive' in that if it is cross-bred with a "dominant" genetics phenotype, the dominant genetics prevail over the recessive features.

A lot of brazilians, argentinians, LIGURIANS, etc.. for example,
(see pic attached of 15th century Ligurian Simonetta Vespucci for instance for phenotype advocates who claim
that a modern dominant phenotype in Liguria means no historical introgression)

may have a (usually) paternal ancestry from Europe that includes 'recessive' genetics features in their genome (blue/green/gray eyes, blonde/red hair, pink or pale skin)
If this person mates and produces offspring with a person of 'dominant' genetics their recessive genes usually cannot manifest in a person who is the product of intermixing with a 'dominant' genetics mate (black/brown hair, brown eyes, brown/black/yellow skin)
Recessive features like listed above recede unless they are in a breeding pool that reinforces these features.


"In heterozygous (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterozygous) individuals the only allele that is expressed is the dominant. The recessive allele is present but its expression is hidden."


If the trait in question is determined by simple (complete) dominance, a heterozygote will express only the trait coded by the dominant allele and the trait coded by the recessive allele will not be present. In more complex dominance schemes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominant_allele#Types_of_dominances) the results of heterozygosity can be more complex.

Read= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mendelian_inheritance

5483
This is a 'Ligurian' Genoan from the 15th century, which also happens to have been incorporated into the Lombardic Kingdom, btw.

I did not mean to refuse a answer to you, I simply did not understand, and probably still do not fully understand, what exactly you were asking of me. If you have some other request please do not 'bold' the entire paragraph, and I will reply as best I can. thanks.

zanipolo
11-02-12, 01:51
when I use the term "recessive" I mean it in the mendellian sense.

A northern europid phenotype is 'recessive' in that if it is cross-bred with a "dominant" genetics phenotype, the dominant genetics prevail over the recessive features.

A lot of brazilians, argentinians, LIGURIANS, etc.. for example,
(see pic attached of 15th century Ligurian Simonetta Vespucci for instance for phenotype advocates who claim
that a modern dominant phenotype in Liguria means no historical introgression)

may have a (usually) paternal ancestry from Europe that includes 'recessive' genetics features in their genome (blue/green/gray eyes, blonde/red hair, pink or pale skin)
If this person mates and produces offspring with a person of 'dominant' genetics their recessive genes usually cannot manifest in a person who is the product of intermixing with a 'dominant' genetics mate (black/brown hair, brown eyes, brown/black/yellow skin)
Recessive features like listed above recede unless they are in a breeding pool that reinforces these features.





Read= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mendelian_inheritance

5483
This is a 'Ligurian' Genoan from the 15th century, which also happens to have been incorporated into the Lombardic Kingdom, btw.

I did not mean to refuse a answer to you, I simply did not understand, and probably still do not fully understand, what exactly you were asking of me. If you have some other request please do not 'bold' the entire paragraph, and I will reply as best I can. thanks.

i do not know where you are going with this , but italians which went to southern brazil ( and there where 3M veneti from 1870-1950 )still to this day retain the same looks as when they left. There is also a german contingent there
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talian_dialect

vespucci drawing is what the northern look like yesterday and today, its only mussolini who mixed the italian population by force, 40,000 friuli to sardinia, 250000 sicilians to istria, 30000 veneti to lazio etc etc

You have proved nothing

besides some of your link do not work

corinth
11-02-12, 02:00
i do not know where you are going with this , but italians which went to southern brazil ( and there where 3M veneti from 1870-1950 )still to this day retain the same looks as when they left.

You have proved nothing

besides some of your link do not work


mtDNA Composition of the Brazilian Population
We analyzed 247 unrelated Brazilian individuals (mainly classified as “white” in Brazil and belonging to the middle and upper-middle classes) who came from four of the five major geographic regions of the country (fig. 1 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1287189/figure/FG1/)). According to the Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia Estatística (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1287189/#RF501), responsible for the census in Brazil, 51.6% of Brazilians in 1996 classified themselves as 'white'.

The 247 Brazilian mtDNA lineages, yielding 170 different HVS-I haplotypes, can be perfectly allocated to the known haplogroups (tables​(tables22 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1287189/table/TB2/)​222 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1287189/table/TB201/)​2 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1287189/table/TB202/)​ (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1287189/table/TB203/)​ (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1287189/table/TB204/) and ​and33 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1287189/table/TB3/) and fig. 2 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1287189/figure/FG2/)). Altogether, 82 mtDNA lineages fall into the Native American/Asian haplogroups, A–D (with one A lineage of confirmed western-Asian ancestry), whereas 69 belong to various African haplogroups and 96 belong to European haplogroups.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1287189/

corinth
11-02-12, 02:02
I've warned you more than once for your rude and provocative behaviour towards other board members. This time around you get points for an infraction.



And there's no reason for you to provoke others, either. Please don't do that.

I just realized in my profile I am insulted with a reprimand like a child.

Please remove my account from this site, I will not be back again. thank you.

Gallia Teutonia
11-04-15, 22:48
For Dorianfinder:
I'm R1b-U152 myself so I'm very curious about your theory, that's very interesting. Could you tell me more about it? If you've got some articles that suggest this theory, could you send me them privately, please?
I'd be very pleased. Thank you

Gallia Teutonia
11-04-15, 22:51
Lombard lands c.750-785

The Lombards could have carried more R1b-U152 than R1b-U106 if we consider for a moment their migration routes into Italy. I do not deny that there had already been a significant R1b-U152 presence in Italy before their arrival but the R1b-U152 homeland was on the Lombardic migratory route to Italy. What we find today in Northern Italy appears to correspond with a Lombard expansion with an almost bottle-neck on the Lombardy southern border where R1b-U152 frequencies are highest. This explains high R1b-U152 levels on the Sicilian north coast as it was a Lombard colony and resulted in turning Sicily into what later became an anti-papist stronghold with Swabian rulers and Lombard aristocracy.



This is the theory I'm referring to :)

joeyc
12-04-15, 11:43
Hi Gallia and welcome on board.

No U152 is an Italic and Celtic lineage native of Italy. Some Germans have it too of course.

http://r1b.org/imgs/Early_R1b_Copper_Age_Migrations_v02.png

Pax Augusta
12-04-15, 16:26
R1b-U152 has nothing to do with the Germanic Lombards (Langobards).

mihaitzateo
12-04-15, 17:47
As for Lombards,that is clear they settled in massive numbers in Italy,since there is a zone called "Lombardia".
I think there is not hard to search the Lombardia dialects for Germanic origin words.
As for what Y DNA the Lombards were carrying,they came quite late to Italy,so I think would be hard to link Lombards with mostly only one haplogroup.
Think they were quite mixed people,from genetics point of view.

Angela
12-04-15, 19:16
As for Lombards,that is clear they settled in massive numbers in Italy,since there is a zone called "Lombardia".
I think there is not hard to search the Lombardia dialects for Germanic origin words.
As for what Y DNA the Lombards were carrying,they came quite late to Italy,so I think would be hard to link Lombards with mostly only one haplogroup.
Think they were quite mixed people,from genetics point of view.


The fact that Italy has a province named Lombardia doesn't mean the historical Langobardi came to Italy in "massive" numbers. The names given to certain areas do not constitute proof of ancestry of the people living in those areas today. America was called America after the explorer Amerigo Vespucci, who was a Tuscan. That doesn't mean most Americans are Tuscans...quite the contrary. Likewise, New Orleans is not inhabited by people of majority French stock from Orleans.

The only actual report we have about the Lombard invasion is from Paul the Deacon, written two hundred years after the event. From that account it seems that the "Lombards", who were accompanied by affiliated peoples, numbered no more than 150,000 people in total. It would be nice if we had a contemporaneous report, and ancient writers didn't operate under the constraints that apply to modern ones, but Paul the Deacon was a Lombard functionary of the Lombard court, and if he were going to exaggerate the numbers, one would think that he would inflate rather than deflate the numbers. Then we have to consider that some of these people, particularly the groups of men unaccompanied by their families, returned to the north.

This was at a time when, despite the fact that the Lombards claimed the land around their initial entry was "relatively" depopulated, (how convenient) Italy's population still numbered in the millions, if lower than before the invasions, and certainly lower than before the Gothic Wars. Now, perhaps in the initial areas of encounter in north eastern and north central northern Italy (including Lombarida), the invaders would have formed a bigger percentage of the population, but I see no evidence anywhere in the record that they came in "massive" numbers. The actual autosomal impact on the northern Italians prior to the dislocations attendant upon industrialization will have to await ancient Dna, in my opinion, but I tend to doubt it will be large. Input from north of the Alps in general is another matter, and I'm starting to think we're going to have quite a bit of trouble distinguishing between the two.

I would just mention that the Wiki article on the Lombard Invasion of Italy has been massively edited by some agenda driven internet warrior in my opinion. However, luckily, such people can't take actual academic texts and papers out of circulation.

This is a good one:The early Medieval World From the Fall of Rome To The Time of Charlemagne, by Michael Frassetto. There are quite a few others, but this one is exhaustive in its coverage.

It is a google book. The number of Lombard invaders can be found on page 382.
https://books.google.com/books?id=6feKDfRM9sYC&pg=PA21&lpg=PA21&dq=the+early+medieval+world+from+the+fall+of+rome+ to+the+time+of+charlemagne&source=bl&ots=igDpAZ5oV0&sig=R7QETdoju97af_AlyWD38d7iSQo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=bqkqVdK7OfeKsQTF9YDgAQ&ved=0CDoQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=the early medieval world from the fall of rome to the time of charlemagne&f=false

That said, there are numerous subclades of U-152. I don't know where all this certainty comes from that some of them couldn't have come with the Lombards. They did, after all, as someone pointed out, pass through areas where there is U152 today in order to reach Italy.

Any attempt to tie certain specific subclades to certain specific migrations will have to await ancient Dna, in my opinion.

Even should rather large portions of yDna U-152 be tied to "Lombards", that wouldn't change the fact that their percentage of autosomal input might be substantially less than their yDna input. I think we've all seen the disconnect that can exist between yDna percentages and the autosomal input of the initial yDna clade bearers, whatever the clade involved in the matter.

Sile
12-04-15, 20:26
Lombards cannot be U152, they acame either from Scania in Sweden of on the map below where it states GOr
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germani_cisrhenani#/media/File:Germanic_expansion.gif

mihaitzateo
13-04-15, 13:53
@Angela: you are avoiding the subject "German origin words in Lombard dialects".
I have talked to people from Lombardia and they have told me that the dialects (or even languages) spoken in Lombardia are not that mutually intelligible with Italian.
If someone looks on an autosomal admixture map of Italy,is clearly seen that in North Italy NW European admixture (which has the maximum in South Sweden,South Norway and Denmark) is much higher that in South Italy.If that is not a proof that a significant number of German people settled there ,how else that admixture got there?
As a comparison in Spanish language there a lot of words of Germanic origin.And also,plenty of NW admixture.However,I do not see too much talked on this forum about the Germanic blood of Spaniards.
EDIT:
Here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emilian_dialect
Actually the languages spoken in Lombardia are from Gallo-Italic group of languages being more closed to French,than to Italian.
Now,Italian is the official language and people needs to learn it,even if they are willing or not.
Now,I do not think there is anyone denying French are mixed with Franks at least -I think they are also mixed with other Germanic people. Would be interesting to research if Lombards are more Celto-Germanic,than Celto-Italic.

giuseppe rossi
13-04-15, 15:57
^^

No those "admixtures" come from mesoltich/neoltich migrations for the most part, not from Celts, Germanics and the like.

About 8% of the Spanish dictionary is made of Arabic words.

http://www.transpanish.biz/translation_blog/the-influence-of-arabic-on-the-spanish-language/

About the numbers of Lombards and like, those are all estimates out of ass, which were made by agenda driven charlatans. Moreover Lombards were not the only people who migrated to Italy. Ostrogoths, Visigoths, Franks, Alemans, Vandals... just to name a few, and later also Normans, Arbereshe, Swabians, Croats....

Angela
13-04-15, 15:59
@Angela: you are avoiding the subject "German origin words in Lombard dialects".
I have talked to people from Lombardia and they have told me that the dialects (or even languages) spoken in Lombardia are not that mutually intelligible with Italian.
If someone looks on an autosomal admixture map of Italy,is clearly seen that in North Italy NW European admixture (which has the maximum in South Sweden,South Norway and Denmark) is much higher that in South Italy.If that is not a proof that a significant number of German people settled there ,how else that admixture got there?
As a comparison in Spanish language there a lot of words of Germanic origin.And also,plenty of NW admixture.However,I do not see too much talked on this forum about the Germanic blood of Spaniards.
EDIT:
Here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emilian_dialect
Actually the languages spoken in Lombardia are from Gallo-Italic group of languages being more closed to French,than to Italian.
Now,Italian is the official language and people needs to learn it,even if they are willing or not.
Now,I do not think there is anyone denying French are mixed with Franks at least -I think they are also mixed with other Germanic people. Would be interesting to research if Lombards are more Celto-Germanic,than Celto-Italic.

The presence of a few loan words from German into Italian prove nothing. Italian has recently adopted a lot of English words because English is becoming a lingua franca necessary for computers, certain kinds of finance etc. and it is also omnipresent in the media, both music and film. That doesn't mean there is a big impact of Anglo genes in Italy.

The division in Italy in terms of dialects can be seen on the following maps and it precedes the arrival of the Lombards. As you can see from the first map, Romanian, like Tuscan and the dialects of the south, is an Eastern Romance language. Generally, the areas north of the red La-Spezia-Rimini line, drawn by some linguists from Massa to Senigallia, speak Gallic Italian dialects.

Ed. Sorry, I have to post the maps separately, as they are too large.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/96/Western_and_Eastern_Romania.PNG

Angela
13-04-15, 16:15
This graphic explains the relationship between the different Romance language groups more clearly. I have a little real life experience with these similarities. When I studied in Barcelona I discovered that some Catalans preferred, if possible, not to speak standard Spanish. It didn't present any difficulty. They would speak to me in Catalan, and I understood them quite well. I think it may have something to do with the fact that Catalan (and Occitan) and Ligurian, which I heard all around me as a child, have some close ties.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/31/Romance-lg-classification-en.png

Angela
13-04-15, 16:19
I have also included a map of the Italian dialects; it is extremely accurate, in my opinion. . In my maternal grandmother's area, which is where you can see light blue, yellow and dark blue, all three variants were indeed spoken. The Tuscan dialect arrived in the area a few hundred years ago because part of the area came into the possession of the Medici. The rest are older. (My paternal side spoke only Emiliano, and my maternal grandfather's family came from the hinterlands above La Spezia, and spoke Ligurian.) I have never found any of the northern Italian dialects totally unintelligible. I don't speak any of them because I was only allowed to speak standard Italian, but I can understand most of what I am hearing. The southern ones are a bit more difficult, but anyone with a decent ear, in my opinion, who knows standard Italian, can pick up at least the gist of what is being said. Regardless, the issue doesn't arise because people will just switch to standard Italian. The only Italian you're going to find nowadays who doesn't speak standard Italian is going to be some 90 year old illiterate peasant or some diaspora Italian whose ancestors departed before education became compulsory. (Indeed, despite the Slavic additions to Romanian, I can often get the gist of that as well, as I discovered on a business trip to Romania, which unfortunately took place before Ceaucescu was booted from power.)

At any rate, the important point in terms of this thread is that the major division into dialects in Italy has nothing to do with the Lombards. It precedes them.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/16/Languages_spoken_in_Italy.svg/2000px-Languages_spoken_in_Italy.svg.png

Angela
13-04-15, 16:59
^^

No those "admixtures" come from mesoltich/neoltich migrations for the most part, not from Celts, Germanics and the like.

About 8% of the Spanish dictionary is made of Arabic words.

http://www.transpanish.biz/translation_blog/the-influence-of-arabic-on-the-spanish-language/

About the numbers of Lombards and like, those are all estimates out of ass, which were made by agenda driven charlatans. Moreover Lombards were not the only people who migrated to Italy. Ostrogoths, Visigoths, Franks, Alemans, Vandals... just to name a few, and later also Normans, Arbereshe, Swabians, Croats....

I'm not sure if you are including Paul the Deacon in the group of agenda driven charlatans, although he doubtless had an agenda of sorts. His account says about 100,000 Lombards invaded Italy. He's certainly not describing a tidal wave of people who could have had a massive impact on the Italian genome, even if it had some effect on ydna or mtDna, and despite some depopulation after the Gothic Wars. (Reputable scholars, Italians among them, have increased it to about 150,000 to take account of affiliated peoples, women and children, as sourced above. Again, not a "massive" influx of genes.)

giuseppe rossi
13-04-15, 17:03
As you have said Paul lived centuries after those events had took place, so he is also pulling those numbers out of his ass.

mihaitzateo
13-04-15, 17:06
^^

No those "admixtures" come from mesoltich/neoltich migrations for the most part, not from Celts, Germanics and the like.

About 8% of the Spanish dictionary is made of Arabic words.

http://www.transpanish.biz/translation_blog/the-influence-of-arabic-on-the-spanish-language/

About the numbers of Lombards and like, those are all estimates out of ass, which were made by agenda driven charlatans. Moreover Lombards were not the only people who migrated to Italy. Ostrogoths, Visigoths, Franks, Alemans, Vandals... just to name a few, and later also Normans, Arbereshe, Swabians, Croats....
North Italy have like 40% if not more light eyes (blue/green eyes).
There is also an area with a higher percentage of R1b-L21 in Northern Italy.
Even according to outdated Maciamo datas from here:
http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml
there is about 15% Y DNA - 7% I1,3.5% I2b,4.5% R1A which should be of Germanic origins.
But I think the real percentages of Germanic paternal lines from Northern Italy is like 25% or so.
Please see results here:
https://www.familytreedna.com/public/northitaly/default.aspx?section=ysnp

You can notice there is also some R1b-U105 ,which means that Maciamo should be thinking to update his maps.
R1b-U152 percentages from Maciamo maps do not correspond at all with the results from the above link,from family tree dna.
And a surprise there are Italian carrying even I-P109 which is of origins from Western Finland and which could only be brought by Scandinavian Germanic speakers.

giuseppe rossi
13-04-15, 17:32
The highest percentage of R-L21 is in Sicily AFAIK.

Germanic ydna lineages are also quite common in parts of Central and Southern Italy, up to 40% of Campobasso Molise.

Angela
13-04-15, 17:51
As you have said Paul lived centuries after those events had took place, so he is also pulling those numbers out of his ass.

As you are not a native English speaker, nor obviously a long time resident of a country where English is the standard language, and may be drawing your English expressions from movies, I would point out that phrases like this are not commonly used in academic or scientific discussions. Indeed, in most cases they are not used in polite mixed company. Clean up your act and reserve expressions like this for the bar or among your "hopefully" male friends.

Angela
13-04-15, 17:54
This discussion of "Germanic" yDna lineages is all very interesting, but it may not have much to do with autosomal proportions in Italians. I had hoped that the analysis going on of actual ancient Lombard DNA would give us some answers, but so far they haven't.

See the following dedicated thread to the subject:

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/31090-Langobard-MtDna-in-Northern-Italy-%28Piemonte%29?highlight=Lombards

mihaitzateo
13-04-15, 18:12
This discussion of "Germanic" yDna lineages is all very interesting, but it may not have much to do with autosomal proportions in Italians. I had hoped that the analysis going on of actual ancient Lombard DNA would give us some answers, but so far they haven't.

See the following dedicated thread to the subject:

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/31090-Langobard-MtDna-in-Northern-Italy-%28Piemonte%29?highlight=Lombards
Well why would you take the percentages of Germanic Mtdna in North Italy?
It is supposed that most Germanic people coming in North Italy and settling there were males.
It should be something logic,that since Roman Empire had such an aggressive external policy with taking males and putting them in the army,lots of Romans died .
I understand that only after lots of years in military services Roman males were allowed to settle and than ,they could marry and have children.
So I think it was a serious shortage of Roman males in whole Italy.
And in North Italy,Germanic males took mostly native Italic women as wives and got assimilated to Italic ethnicity.
If Roman Empire would not have encountered a serious shortage of males,than Germanic tribes could have not overrun Italy and conquer it.
Cause Roman Empire army was much more superior as fighting techniques and equipment ,compared to Germanic tribes.
There is the legend of "great Germanic warriors" or "great Vikings warriors",come on,those are fairy tales.
These people were not even having metal shields,were disorganized. Any serious army would have beat hard the "great Vikings".

mihaitzateo
13-04-15, 19:23
I have found this map,which they say is telling about R1b-U152 in Italy:
http://r1b.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/U152_Only_Map.png
http://r1b.org/?page_id=242
I do not know how accurate these percentages are.

giuseppe rossi
13-04-15, 20:07
I dunno but I am sure that future Italians will have a lot of Slavic and Romanian mtdna lineages, by looking at ratio of immigration and inter ethnic mixing...

Sile
13-04-15, 20:13
I have found this map,which they say is telling about R1b-U152 in Italy:
http://r1b.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/U152_Only_Map.png
http://r1b.org/?page_id=242
I do not know how accurate these percentages are.

I have already stated that a lot of swabians went into verona, vicenza and treviso ....even towns where completely swabian , like my grandmother from Merlengo was originally Merling from the same named town in swabia, and Merlengo is only 6km north of Treviso

But, the paper does state this from an earlier period

The influence of the Central European Bell Beaker Begleitkeramik group does seem to have made an impact in the formative phase of the Polada Culture in northern Italy and the late Bell Beaker period in Tuscany.[16][17] The changes brought on by the Polada Culture are so apparent that, by unanimous opinion, a movement of human groups has been presumed between Central Europe and the Po Valley.[18][19][20] The direction or origin of the gene flow is difficult to assess however.

But L2 of the U152 branch sticks out in northeast italy and into central austria .............there is a paper on this

mihaitzateo
13-04-15, 21:31
I dunno but I am sure that future Italians will have a lot of Slavic and Romanian mtdna lineages, by looking at ratio of immigration and inter ethnic mixing...
:D
Maybe it was same in the past,was lots of Germanic migrants coming to Roman Empire,cause in those times German states were not even existing and Germanic tribes barely had what to eat.
Think Vikings ,when they started the expansion were desperate to make a living ,they did not had enough land to farm in Scandinavia.
Same about other Germanic tribes who started to invade Europe.

Angela
13-04-15, 22:15
Well why would you take the percentages of Germanic Mtdna in North Italy?
It is supposed that most Germanic people coming in North Italy and settling there were males.
It should be something logic,that since Roman Empire had such an aggressive external policy with taking males and putting them in the army,lots of Romans died .
I understand that only after lots of years in military services Roman males were allowed to settle and than ,they could marry and have children.
So I think it was a serious shortage of Roman males in whole Italy.
And in North Italy,Germanic males took mostly native Italic women as wives and got assimilated to Italic ethnicity.
If Roman Empire would not have encountered a serious shortage of males,than Germanic tribes could have not overrun Italy and conquer it.
Cause Roman Empire army was much more superior as fighting techniques and equipment ,compared to Germanic tribes.
There is the legend of "great Germanic warriors" or "great Vikings warriors",come on,those are fairy tales.
These people were not even having metal shields,were disorganized. Any serious army would have beat hard the "great Vikings".

The account of Paul the Deacon makes it clear that the Lombard movement into Italy was a true folk migration which included women and children, even if there weren't all that many of them. That isn't to say that there might not have been a higher ratio of men vs women. Regardless, I don't see how such a relatively small group, even if it wasn't a totally elite male migration, could have had a massive impact on the Italian genome even in the northern half of the country. I'm not denying that it had some impact. Time, more ancient dna, and better analysis will tell the tale.

We also don't know yet what specific yDna clades they carried, although it's generally held that R1b U106 and I1 are probably a good bet. I would think that R1b L21 is probably more likely to be Gallic in origin. There is certainly some evidence for "Gallic/Celtic migrations into northern Italy from various directions in the first millennium BC, although again the exact numbers are not known. See Barry Cunliffe:
https://books.google.com/books?id=NAwGLzAfyhEC&pg=PA363&dq=lombard+folk+migration+into+italy&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ryAsVa2mMLeasQSXyICoCw&ved=0CEUQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=lombard folk migration into italy&f=false

The presence of R1b L21 in northwestern Sicily might be from the Normans, who might have picked up some of it in Normandy and perhaps some of the "Belgian" Normans carried it as well. We also have R1b L21 in Liguria.

As for U-152, it's been speculated for years that it might correlate with the Urnfield culture,among other central European cultures. This map isn't totally accurate, in my opinion, but it gives a general idea:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6d/UrnfieldCulture.jpg/480px-UrnfieldCulture.jpg That isn't to say that some of the downstream clades couldn't have been picked up by the "Lombards" and come to Italy later.


None of that has anything to do with the policies of the Roman military. You were indeed not permitted to marry until you had served out your term of military service. However, it was well known that "unofficial" families were established with local women wherever the legions were stationed.

That is, in turn, separate from the fact that throughout Roman history colonies of Roman soldiers and their families were established, using land taken from defeated rivals, and sometimes established to pacify these newly conquered areas. That is how both Parma and Luni were founded, the two Roman cities closest to me. Roman colonies are attested in Spain, France, Pannonia, and, indeed, Romania.

Mars
13-04-15, 23:23
The account of Paul the Deacon makes it clear that the Lombard movement into Italy was a true folk migration which included women and children, even if there weren't all that many of them. That isn't to say that there might not have been a higher ratio of men vs women. Regardless, I don't see how such a relatively small group, even if it wasn't a totally elite male migration, could have had a massive impact on the Italian genome even in the northern half of the country. I'm not denying that it had some impact. Time, more ancient dna, and better analysis will tell the tale.

I find this matter particularly interesting, because, according to FTDNA, an appreciable amount of my autosomal (16%) belongs to what they call Scandinavian cluster, and having no german or other "nordic" known ancestors in my family line, but just northern italians, I speculated a little about that. I discovered that my maternal grandpa's birthplace, Cervarese S. Croce, a town halfway between Padua and Vicenza in N/E Italy, was a quite important lombard centre in the early Middle Ages. Furthermore, Vicenza was the capital of a lombard Duchy, founded shortly after their arrival from present day Hungary. These facts suggest me that lombards contributed to my family, somehow. Unfortunately, I don't know what FTDNA has to say about other northern italians' autosomal data.

Drac II
14-04-15, 08:32
@Angela: you are avoiding the subject "German origin words in Lombard dialects".
I have talked to people from Lombardia and they have told me that the dialects (or even languages) spoken in Lombardia are not that mutually intelligible with Italian.
If someone looks on an autosomal admixture map of Italy,is clearly seen that in North Italy NW European admixture (which has the maximum in South Sweden,South Norway and Denmark) is much higher that in South Italy.If that is not a proof that a significant number of German people settled there ,how else that admixture got there?
As a comparison in Spanish language there a lot of words of Germanic origin.And also,plenty of NW admixture.However,I do not see too much talked on this forum about the Germanic blood of Spaniards.
EDIT:
Here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emilian_dialect
Actually the languages spoken in Lombardia are from Gallo-Italic group of languages being more closed to French,than to Italian.
Now,Italian is the official language and people needs to learn it,even if they are willing or not.
Now,I do not think there is anyone denying French are mixed with Franks at least -I think they are also mixed with other Germanic people. Would be interesting to research if Lombards are more Celto-Germanic,than Celto-Italic.

Estimating ethnic influences or migrations by means of language or religion is notoriously unreliable, as these are cultural elements that can be easily adopted by other peoples who otherwise have little or nothing else to do with the people where those cultural elements came from. No historian worth his salt makes inferences based only on such things. By using this "logic" based on language or religious elements, we would be forced to conclude that British people are strongly "Latin" or that Serbo-Croatians are strongly "Turkish-Arab-Persian" just because a lot of words in those languages came from those other languages. Cultural influence does not equate with actual ethnic influence.

Drac II
14-04-15, 09:07
About 8% of the Spanish dictionary is made of Arabic words.

http://www.transpanish.biz/translation_blog/the-influence-of-arabic-on-the-spanish-language/[quote]

Considering that the Spanish lexicon is well over 100000 words:

http://catalog.elra.info/product_info.php?products_id=833

It's actually less than 4% of words in Spanish that come from Arabic.

[quote]About the numbers of Lombards and like, those are all estimates out of ass, which were made by agenda driven charlatans.

Those "agenda driven charlatans" happen to be actual historians specializing on this subject, and who unlike you actually know what they are talking about.


Moreover Lombards were not the only people who migrated to Italy. Ostrogoths, Visigoths, Franks, Alemans, Vandals... just to name a few, and later also Normans, Arbereshe, Swabians, Croats....

All of whom came in as small, if not smaller, numbers as the Lombards, and also many of those tribes did not permanently settle down in Italy but kept on moving.

Drac II
14-04-15, 09:14
About 8% of the Spanish dictionary is made of Arabic words.

http://www.transpanish.biz/translation_blog/the-influence-of-arabic-on-the-spanish-language/

Considering that the Spanish dictionary has more than 100000 words:

http://catalog.elra.info/product_info.php?products_id=833

It is actually less than 4% of Arabic-derived words in Spanish.


About the numbers of Lombards and like, those are all estimates out of ass, which were made by agenda driven charlatans.[/quoted]

Those "agenda driven charlatans", like the one referred to above, happen to actually be historians specializing on the era in question, so unlike you they actually have more familiarity with the subject, and they all agree that the numbers of these Germanic invaders were relatively small when compared to the peoples they encountered living in those territories they invaded.

[quote]Moreover Lombards were not the only people who migrated to Italy. Ostrogoths, Visigoths, Franks, Alemans, Vandals... just to name a few, and later also Normans, Arbereshe, Swabians, Croats....

All of whom came in as small, if not smaller, numbers as the Lombards, and many of these tribes did not permanently settle down in Italy but kept on moving.

Drac II
14-04-15, 09:15
About 8% of the Spanish dictionary is made of Arabic words.

http://www.transpanish.biz/translation_blog/the-influence-of-arabic-on-the-spanish-language/

Considering that the Spanish vocabulary has more than 100000 words:

http://www.languagepossible.com/

It is actually less than 4% of Arabic-derived words in Spanish.


About the numbers of Lombards and like, those are all estimates out of ass, which were made by agenda driven charlatans.

Those "agenda driven charlatans", like the one referred to above, happen to actually be historians specializing on the era in question, so unlike you they actually have more familiarity with the subject, and they all agree that the numbers of these Germanic invaders were relatively small when compared to the peoples they encountered living in those territories they invaded.


Moreover Lombards were not the only people who migrated to Italy. Ostrogoths, Visigoths, Franks, Alemans, Vandals... just to name a few, and later also Normans, Arbereshe, Swabians, Croats....

All of whom came in as small, if not smaller, numbers as the Lombards, and many of these tribes did not permanently settle down in Italy but kept on moving.

giuseppe rossi
14-04-15, 09:44
The 8% figure come from professional linguists, but I understand your extreme butthurt.

Here are other source by the professional linguists Quintana, Lucía; Mora, Juan Pablo

http://cvc.cervantes.es/ensenanza/biblioteca_ele/asele/pdf/13/13_0697.pdf


All of whom came in as small, if not smaller, numbers as the Lombards, and many of these tribes did not permanently settle down in Italy but kept on moving.

Many? I can only think of Visigoths and maybe Alemans, but there is also evidence for their permanent settling in Italy.

By the time Visigoths arrived in Iberia, they were mostly Balkanic and Italic from a genetic point of view.

Real Visigoths settled in masse only in France.


and they all agree that the numbers of these Germanic invaders were relatively small when compared to the peoples they encountered living in those territories they invaded.

Which does not change the fact that there is no way to know for sure how many settled, so they are simplying talking out of their asses.

giuseppe rossi
14-04-15, 10:17
Everytime I see this kind of threads, I love when the usual idiot came out saying that medieval migrations did not change nothing.

Then I see this graph of IBD blocks sharing between populations from Ralph Coop et al. and I laugh.

http://i.imgur.com/PmiqF8C.png

Too bad that Southerners are overepresented in that cluster from the POPRES Database. They should be only 20% of the samples, but they are about 60%.

Drac II
14-04-15, 10:47
The 8% figure come from professional linguists, but I understand your extreme butthurt.

Here are other source by the professional linguists Quintana, Lucía; Mora, Juan Pablo

http://cvc.cervantes.es/ensenanza/biblioteca_ele/asele/pdf/13/13_0697.pdf

Unfortunately for you and them, it is very easy to prove them wrong on this. All we have to do is take a look at the Real Academia Española (RAE) dictionary of the Spanish language and its over 93000 words (which is not the actual total for the Spanish language as a whole):

http://www.rae.es/sites/default/files/Preambulo.pdf

to plainly see that about 4000 words of Arabic origin obviously do not make up 8% of the vocabulary. Simple math. I know that you are "butthurt" (as you say) and all, and want to desperately inflate that number (as if it really meant anything relevant to begin with; you might as well rant about the over 1000 words of Arabic origin in English), but it just ain't going to happen.


Many? I can only think of Visigoths and maybe Alemans, but there is also evidence for their permanent settling in Italy.

The Vandals and the Suevi/Suebi/Swabians did not end up in Italy either.


By the time Visigoths arrived in Iberia, they were mostly Balkanic and Italic from a genetic point of view.

By the same token, by the time they arrived in Italy they were already mostly Balkanic from a genetic point of view.


Real Visigoths settled in masse only in France.

The Visigoths in France were part of the same kingdom as that in Iberia:

7202



Which does not change the fact that there is no way to know for sure how many settled, so they are simplying talking out of their asses.

No, they are giving educated estimates based on such things as historical and/or archaeological evidence.

giuseppe rossi
14-04-15, 11:36
Unfortunately for you and them, it is very easy to prove them wrong on this. All we have to do is take a look at the Real Academia Española (RAE) dictionary of the Spanish language and its over 93000 words (which is not the actual total for the Spanish language as a whole):

http://www.rae.es/sites/default/files/Preambulo.pdf

to plainly see that about 4000 words of Arabic origin obviously do not make up 8% of the vocabulary. Simple math. I know that you are "butthurt" (as you say) and all, and want to desperately inflate that number (as if it really meant anything relevant to begin with; you might as well rant about the over 1000 words of Arabic origin in English), but it just ain't going to happen.

There is not reference to 4000 words in the PDF I've linked. You are inventing stuff again.

8% of Spanish vocubalary is made up of Arabic words.

Read the complete article again.

http://cvc.cervantes.es/ensenanza/biblioteca_ele/asele/pdf/13/13_0697.pdf





The Vandals and the Suevi/Suebi/Swabians did not end up in Italy either.



By the same token, by the time they arrived in Italy they were already mostly Balkanic from a genetic point of view.



The Visigoths in France were part of the same kingdom as that in Iberia:

7202




No, they are giving educated estimates based on such things as historical and/or archaeological evidence.

By Swabians I meant the late Medieval Hohenstaufen dinasty who ruled Italy for about two century, not the Germanic tribe. Vandals occupied Sardinia, Corsica and parts of Sicily.

Visigoths settled in masse in France, then they slowly expanded south.

Hauteville
14-04-15, 11:51
Italy had as well the Gothic kingdom. In red.
http://s29.postimg.org/tfl9qi6av/Europa_in_526.png (http://postimage.org/)

giuseppe rossi
14-04-15, 11:55
Yes and before them the Scires and the Erules lead by Odoacer.

Lombards brought also many Gepids and Saxons with them into Italy.

mihaitzateo
14-04-15, 12:03
M8s can you please stop arguing about Arab words from Spanish?
This thread is about Lombards genetics in Italy.

mihaitzateo
14-04-15, 12:07
Now coming back to the thread,I understand that according to history,Lombards moved first in Austria and from Austria,moved to Italy.
It would be common sense,that they moved first in North East Italy.
According to the percentages of R1B-U152 ,from the Boattini et al. ,R1B-U152 can not be carried by Lombards since highest density is in NW Italy.
I think that Lombards should have brought some I1,some I2B,maybe even some R1A and other HGs that they might have picked up from Austria.
I know that there some I2A in NE Italy,that could have been also brought by Lombards and other Germanic migrators,picked up from Austria and Pannonia.
EDIT:
Here is the table with detailed results,of 884 samples of males DNA,per area:
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/asset?unique&id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0065441.s013
Percentages of I1 in Vicenza:
From 40 samples,we have 7 samples being I1 - 6 are I1-M253 and 1 is I1d-L22.
So a quite spectacular result,14.3% of the paternal lines in Vicenza are I1.
So I think most of these I1 could be attributed to Lombards,cause I1 is mostly of Scandinavian origins.
Another weird thing,4 samples of these 40 samples are L-M20 which I think is also brought by Germanics,who have mixed with some Asians,or Fino-Ugric people,or Turkic people.
From these 40 samples,only 4 are R1B-U152/L20.So I think is clearly out of questions that Germanics might have brought R1b-U152 to Italy.

Angela
14-04-15, 14:14
Italian wasn't artificially created by Dante. Many North Italians had an important role to make the Tuscan the main language of Italy: Pietro Bembo, Alessandro Manzoni and many others.




Italian wasn't really accepted by some of the poorest and uneducated people. Italian was already the language of the upper class of most of the preunitarian states with few exceptions.

Even the Republic of Venice used for many centuries since the 1500 AD the Tuscan as language in the internal affairs: "Così, per es., le relazioni degli ambasciatori veneziani al Senato della Serenissima all’inizio del XVI secolo appaiono scritte in un volgare sostanzialmente toscano, cioè italiano, ma che conserva ancora elementi fonologici, morfologici e lessicali veneziani."

"La diffusione di una lingua letteraria di base toscana era cominciata già attorno alla fine del XIII secolo a Bologna; nel secolo successivo i principali poli di irradiazione furono le città del Veneto (Venezia, Treviso, Padova) e la corte dei Visconti a Milano. Nel 1332 il metricologo e poeta padovano Antonio da Tempo dichiara la lingua tusca, cioè il toscano, magis apta [...] ad literam sive literaturam quam aliae linguae «più adatta all’espressione scritta e alla letteratura delle altre lingue». Sempre nel Trecento, il modello fiorentino si diffonde anche in centri dell’Italia centrale e meridionale come Perugia e Napoli. Il processo di unificazione della lingua letteraria, anzitutto poetica, procede – anche se con esitazioni e regressioni – nel Quattrocento, accelerando alla fine del secolo, grazie soprattutto all’affermarsi del petrarchismo.
Più tarda è l’adozione del toscano nella lingua amministrativa. La prima corte che adotta il fiorentino trecentesco come modello, oltre che nella letteratura, anche nella prassi cancelleresca, è quella di Ludovico il Moro, signore di Milano tra il 1480 e il 1499 (Vitale 1988).

Le lingue in uso nelle corti d’Italia tra Quattrocento e Cinquecento avevano abbandonato i tratti dialettali più evidenti, ma facevano pur sempre concessioni nella fonetica e nella morfologia ai volgari locali. Il successo della proposta arcaizzante di ➔ Pietro Bembo, che appoggiava la lingua letteraria all’uso degli autori fiorentini del Trecento, soprattutto ➔ Francesco Petrarca e ➔ Giovanni Boccaccio, spezza il filo che le lingue cortigiane mantenevano con la lingua parlata, e dunque anche con i volgari locali.
Nell’ambito cancelleresco, amministrativo, giuridico, ecc., l’uso dell’italiano-fiorentino restava basato su conoscenze approssimative e condizionato dal volgare locale più a lungo di quanto accada nella lingua letteraria. Così, per es., le relazioni degli ambasciatori veneziani al Senato della Serenissima all’inizio del XVI secolo appaiono scritte in un volgare sostanzialmente toscano, cioè italiano, ma che conserva ancora elementi fonologici, morfologici e lessicali veneziani. Questo genere di lingua è chiamata spesso tosco-veneto. Nei decenni successivi i tratti locali vennero progressivamente abbandonati, e si giunse entro la fine del secolo a una pressoché completa toscanizzazione (Durante 1981: 163-164; Tomasin 2001: 158-164). L’adozione del modello toscano nel secondo Cinquecento e nel Seicento è un fenomeno che riguarda più in generale la lingua degli scriventi colti di tutta Italia. Da questo termine in avanti solo le scritture dei semicolti (➔ italiano popolare) presentano fenomeni di ibridismo tra la norma scritta nazionale, l’italiano, e la lingua parlata locale, il dialetto (Bartoli Langeli 2000). "


Source:
http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/volgari-medievali_%28Enciclopedia-dell%27Italiano%29/




Northern Italian Pomo and French Pom both derives from Latin pomum, generic term for a fruit. In Sicilian there is pumu, in Italian/Tuscan there is pomo (just as in Gallo-Italic and Venetian) but considered obsolete in Tuscany.

Giovanni Boccaccio (medieval Tuscan writer) from The Decameron

«nell'un di questi forzieri è la mia corona, la verga reale e 'l pomo »












"dì" is Italian/Tuscan of Latin origin (Latin dies), not northern Italian only. If you were Italian, you'd know it.

buon dì (or buondì) and buongiorno are both Italian. Buondì is still used today in many regions of Italy, not only in North Italy.

http://www.treccani.it/vocabolario/di/


Giovanni Boccaccio (medieval Tuscan writer) from The Decameron

«Io son veramente colui che quell'uomo uccisi istamane in sul di" »




Dì is not Gallo-Italic and Romanian doesn't surely derive from a Gallo-Italic dialect.

Excellent post. However, I am going to be moving all the posts which go into a detailed analysis of the Italian language to a dedicated thread I have just created. That includes my own posts. It was high time, anyway, that such a thread was created.

Angela
14-04-15, 14:27
A discussion of Arabic loan words into Spanish is totally off topic. Any further such comments will be removed.

Angela
14-04-15, 15:07
Everytime I see this kind of threads, I love when the usual idiot came out saying that medieval migrations did not change nothing.

Then I see this graph of IBD blocks sharing between populations from Ralph Coop et al. and I laugh.

http://i.imgur.com/PmiqF8C.png

Too bad that Southerners are overepresented in that cluster from the POPRES Database. They should be only 20% of the samples, but they are about 60%.

Please be so kind as to link to a Popres Database page which gives the geographic origin in Italy of each of its samples so that the 60% figure can be verified. You and Drac have an unfortunate habit of making general statements for which detailed links to sources are in short supply.

More importantly, I am not following your logic here. Ralph and Coop described a genetic cline in Italy based on blocks shared with people from other countries. There is a decreasing cline with the French speaking Swiss as you move south in Italy. Whether there are 10 or 50 samples from southern Italy, the pattern is the same, as would be expected from population history, isolation by distance and just common sense, not to mention the dozens of PCAs which show the same cline. Do I really have to post all of them as well?

I am sorry that you're not pleased with the fact that Neapolitans don't plot anywhere near Switzerland no matter the metric used, but facts are stubborn things. Take heart, maybe you have less "northern" ancestry than you might wish, but if Ralph and Coop are correct, and there was no significant change in the Italian genome after the "Celtic" migrations of around 500 BC, then there was minimal influence from the dreaded "Roman slaves" of any ancestry, including from the direction of Turkey.

giuseppe rossi
14-04-15, 16:22
Moorjani et al divides the Italian samples from the POPRES database between 120 Southern Italians 90 Northern Italians, so it's kinda obvious that Southerners are overepresented (they should make only 20% of total samples and not 60%).

Also I don't get this hostility towards Neapolitans from you. But since you are an American, this does not surprise me after all. Americans are famous for their ignorance and arrogance.


Now coming back to the thread,I understand that according to history,Lombards moved first in Austria and from Austria,moved to Italy.
It would be common sense,that they moved first in North East Italy.
According to the percentages of R1B-U152 ,from the Boattini et al. ,R1B-U152 can not be carried by Lombards since highest density is in NW Italy.
I think that Lombards should have brought some I1,some I2B,maybe even some R1A and other HGs that they might have picked up from Austria.
I know that there some I2A in NE Italy,that could have been also brought by Lombards and other Germanic migrators,picked up from Austria and Pannonia.
EDIT:
Here is the table with detailed results,of 884 samples of males DNA,per area:
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/asset?unique&id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0065441.s013
Percentages of I1 in Vicenza:
From 40 samples,we have 7 samples being I1 - 6 are I1-M253 and 1 is I1d-L22.
So a quite spectacular result,14.3% of the paternal lines in Vicenza are I1.
So I think most of these I1 could be attributed to Lombards,cause I1 is mostly of Scandinavian origins.
Another weird thing,4 samples of these 40 samples are L-M20 which I think is also brought by Germanics,who have mixed with some Asians,or Fino-Ugric people,or Turkic people.
From these 40 samples,only 4 are R1B-U152/L20.So I think is clearly out of questions that Germanics might have brought R1b-U152 to Italy.

Vicenza is kinda outlier. The frequency of I1 for Veneto is 8.5%.

By the way there is already a thread about the frequency of Germanic y dna lineages in Europe.

Angela
14-04-15, 16:47
Moorjani et al divides the Italian samples from the POPRES database between 120 Southern Italians 90 Northern Italians, so it's kinda obvious that Southerners are overepresented (they should make only 20% of total samples and not 60%).

Also I don't get this hostility towards Neapolitans from you. But since you are an American, this does not surprise me after all. Americans are famous for their ignorance and arrogance.



Vicenza is kinda outlier. The frequency of I1 for Veneto is 8.5%.

By the way there is already a thread about the frequency of Germanic y dna lineages in Europe.

You have yet to make a logical argument for why the fact that there are more samples in the Popres data base from southern Italy than from northern Italy invalidates the claim that those southern Italian samples show less IBD sharing with the Swiss French, among other central and even northern European populations, than do northern Italians, or proof that there is not a genetic cline in Italy, with southern Italians having less of the more "northern" autosomal components.

Btw, I have no hostility toward Neapolitans or southern Italians in general. How could I? I married one, and he is the father of my children. Indeed, he's part Neapolitan, with ancestry from Benevento. Given that, would you expect any normal person to denigrate that ancestry?

What I object to and what has no place in discussions of science, history and linguistics is hate speech against other ethnicities, personal attacks against other posters, inappropriate language, and distortions of data to support an agenda, no matter the identity of the offending party. You have been guilty of all the preceding on numerous occasions, which is why you have received so many infractions. You just got another one.

You also don't get to define my identity for me, thank-you very much. My birth in Italy to Italian parents, my childhood there, and my citizenship certificate, which permits me to vote in Italian elections, not to mention my life long devotion to Italian culture suffice for me. The opinions of others are irrelevant to me in such a subjective matter.

Ed. I see I was too late on the draw. :)

Drac II
15-04-15, 08:18
There is not reference to 4000 words in the PDF I've linked. You are inventing stuff again.

8% of Spanish vocubalary is made up of Arabic words.

Read the complete article again.

http://cvc.cervantes.es/ensenanza/biblioteca_ele/asele/pdf/13/13_0697.pdf

The around 4000 Arabic loanwords figure is clearly stated in your first link, and it is the most widely accepted one. So it is quite less than 8%, more like 4%, in fact it is not even 4% when you take the whole Spanish vocabulary (over 100000 words) into account. The authors of the paper in the second link apparently underestimated the total amount of Spanish words in order to have come up with the strange 8% figure.




By Swabians I meant the late Medieval Hohenstaufen dinasty who ruled Italy for about two century, not the Germanic tribe. Vandals occupied Sardinia, Corsica and parts of Sicily.

Visigoths settled in masse in France, then they slowly expanded south.

The Visigoths of France were in fact pushed out into Iberia by the Franks.

Drac II
15-04-15, 08:21
Italy had as well the Gothic kingdom. In red.
http://s29.postimg.org/tfl9qi6av/Europa_in_526.png (http://postimage.org/)

Ostrogothic (Eastern Goths) yes, but not Visigothic (Western Goths). The Visigoths passed through Italy, but they did not permanently settle there.

Drac II
15-04-15, 08:28
A discussion of Arabic loan words into Spanish is totally off topic. Any further such comments will be removed.

Sorry, did not see this post till now. As usual "Joey" likes to bring up things that have nothing to do with a given thread, but when he tries to manipulate things for whatever his purposes are he deserves an answer, even if off-topic.

Hauteville
15-04-15, 11:26
Ostrogothic (Eastern Goths) yes, but not Visigothic (Western Goths). The Visigoths passed through Italy, but they did not permanently settle there.
Both are descendent from the original core and center. The Gotland.

Sile
15-04-15, 12:06
Both are descendent from the original core and center. The Gotland.

No Goths from gotland with their Gutes language entered Italy...........all goths where from North coastal Poland and also the mix of goths and sarmatians in southern Ukraine after 200 years of living there. There where not enough gotlanders to mount any type of raid, they could barely keep the swedish geats at bay

Hauteville
15-04-15, 12:54
Secondo le loro stesse tradizioni erano originari dell'attuale isola svedese (http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svezia) di Gotland (http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotland) e la regione di Gtaland (http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6taland).Nel 250 (http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/250) si divisero dai Goti (http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goti) e nacque appunto il regno ostrogoto (http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regno_ostrogoto). Il primo re si chiamava Ostrogota (http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostrogota) ed era della stirpe (http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stirpe) degli Amali (http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amali). [senza fonte (http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Uso_delle_fonti)]
Nel 251 (http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/251) gli Ostrogoti uccisero l'imperatore Decio (http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decio), pi tardi saccheggiarono alcune isole dell'Egeo (http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mar_Egeo) e conquistarono la Tracia (http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tracia) e la Mesia (http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesia).
La prima menzione di Ostrogoti si ha nel 269 (http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/269), quando l'imperatore Claudio II (http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claudio_il_Gotico) li riconobbe fra i barbari sciti (http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sciti). In quell'anno Claudio II riusc a fermare l'avanzata degli Ostrogoti.
Nelle prime fasi della loro migrazione dalla Scandinavia (http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandinavia), gli Ostrogoti, o goti d'Oriente fondarono un regno a nord del Mar Nero (http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mar_Nero), dal III (http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/III_secolo) al IV secolo (http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/IV_secolo) (Cultura di Černjachov (http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultura_di_%C4%8Cernjachov)).
Ma nel 340 (http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/340) ricominciarono le scorrerie e conquistarono il regno vandalo (http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandali) (che prima della conquista del nord Africa (http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nord_Africa) si trovava in Dacia) e presero questa popolosa regione. Dopo queste vittorie assoggettarono popoli slavi (http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavi) ed arrivarono fino al Baltico (http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltico), ed alcuni storici paragonarono le loro imprese a quelle di Alessandro Magno (http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alessandro_Magno), perch avevano creato un regno che partiva dalla Grecia ed arrivava fino al mar Baltico (http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mar_Baltico).


According to their own traditions were from the current Swedish island of Gotland and the region of Gtaland.

In 250 divided by the Goths and was born precisely the Ostrogothic kingdom. The first king was called Ostrogoths and was the race of the Amali. [Citation needed]


In 251 the Ostrogoths killed the emperor Decius, later plundered some Aegean islands and conquered Thrace and Moesia.


The first mention of it has Ostrogoths in 269, when Emperor Claudius II recognized them among the barbarous Scythians. In that year, Claudius II was able to stop the advance of the Ostrogoths.


In the early stages of their migration from Scandinavia, the Ostrogoths, or Goths of the East founded a kingdom in the north of the Black Sea, from the third to the fourth century (Chernyakhov culture).


But the raids began again in 340 and conquered the kingdom vandal (which before the conquest of North Africa was in Dacia) and took this populous region. After these victories subdued Slavs and came to the Baltic, and some historians likened their businesses to those of Alexander the Great, because they had created a kingdom that started from Greece and reached to the Baltic Sea.

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostrogoti#Storia

Angela
15-04-15, 13:26
Sorry, did not see this post till now. As usual "Joey" likes to bring up things that have nothing to do with a given thread, but when he tries to manipulate things for whatever his purposes are he deserves an answer, even if off-topic.

Please reacquaint yourself with the forum guidelines. Each time you step over the line from now on you're going to get an infraction, and that includes personal comments about other posters, no matter who they are, and it particularly includes refusing moderation and harassing moderators, whether on the Board or through PMs.

Mars
16-04-15, 10:21
I wish this thread didn't finish in a shitstorm. Discussing northern european contribution to southern european autosomal always stirs up strange feelings and agendas in the Internet. I'd be angry at this, since as I said before, it personally interests me. Nordicism is a cancer, everyone who knows the basics of the history of civilization should be proud of having eventual southern euro roots.

mihaitzateo
16-04-15, 13:53
I wish this thread didn't finish in a shitstorm. Discussing northern european contribution to southern european autosomal always stirs up strange feelings and agendas in the Internet. I'd be angry at this, since as I said before, it personally interests me. Nordicism is a cancer, everyone who knows the basics of the history of civilization should be proud of having eventual southern euro roots.

The thread did not ended in a shitstorm.
Knowing from where your genetics comes from is an interesting hobby.
Besides,mass-migration or settlement of certain ethnic groups to some areas maybe sometimes influenced lifestyle from there,other times did not and so on.
I do not know how Lombards changed or not Northern Italians.

Angela
16-04-15, 13:59
I wish this thread didn't finish in a shitstorm. Discussing northern european contribution to southern european autosomal always stirs up strange feelings and agendas in the Internet. I'd be angry at this, since as I said before, it personally interests me. Nordicism is a cancer, everyone who knows the basics of the history of civilization should be proud of having eventual southern euro roots.

I've been reading about population genetics ever since the publication of the Cavalli-Sforza book, and studying ancient history, including the Indo-Europeans, since university. It was respectable then, basically a scholarly interest, although there were always a few nut jobs in the corners. The rise of racism in Europe once again, along with the advent of the internet, has created a perfect storm where fringe people and beliefs make a great deal of noise, far disproportionate to their numbers. At least that's the case here. The kinds of opinions sometimes expressed on this Board, not to mention the deranged things posted on some other sites would make you a social pariah here and probably a subject of interest to the FBI.

It can become very unpleasant. That leaves sane, normal people with an academic interest in these subjects a choice. Do you leave the discussion of these topics on internet sites solely to these kinds of people? For one thing, I don't react very well to bullying. For another, I think there's a very real danger that if this branch of science and scholarly interest gets taken over by racists funding for research at reputable universities will dry up. I hear rumblings even now.

So, I'll be happy to discuss any of these topics, including Lombard dna in Italy. :) There are some very well educated, well informed, interesting people on this Board from whom I learn new things every day. I'm not going to let a minority of agenda driven people spoil it for me.

Dorianfinder
19-04-15, 15:07
I started this thread with the following quote by Taranis:

''... if you look at the distribution in France and the British Isles versus the Iberian penninsula. Why is there more U152 in Britain than in Iberia? How is this possible if it's from the Romans?''

The question I have is whether or not there may be another source for U152 besides the spread of U152 emanating from the Roman Empire.
And, following on the above quote by Taranis, if we assume that U152 in the UK is from across the strait in Wallonia, Belgium ... then where did the Walloons originally come from?

mihaitzateo
19-04-15, 15:12
I started this thread with the following quote by Taranis:

''... if you look at the distribution in France and the British Isles versus the Iberian penninsula. Why is there more U152 in Britain than in Iberia? How is this possible if it's from the Romans?''

The question I have is whether or not there may be another source for U152 besides the spread of U152 emanating from the Roman Empire.
And, following on the above quote by Taranis, if we assume that U152 in the UK is from across the strait in Wallonia, Belgium ... then where did the Walloons originally come from?
Well in NE Italy,were Lombards came first there is about 14% I1 and under 5% R1b-U152,highest percentage of R1b-U152 is in Brescia.
So I doubt Lombards carried R1B-U152.

Angela
19-04-15, 15:52
Well in NE Italy,were Lombards came first there is about 14% I1 and under 5% R1b-U152,highest percentage of R1b-U152 is in Brescia.
So I doubt Lombards carried R1B-U152.

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-%28Boattini-et-al-%29

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.

Dorianfinder
19-04-15, 16:01
Well in NE Italy,were Lombards came first there is about 14% I1 and under 5% R1b-U152,highest percentage of R1b-U152 is in Brescia.
So I doubt Lombards carried R1B-U152.

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)?

Angela
19-04-15, 16:05
I started this thread with the following quote by Taranis:

''... if you look at the distribution in France and the British Isles versus the Iberian penninsula. Why is there more U152 in Britain than in Iberia? How is this possible if it's from the Romans?''

The question I have is whether or not there may be another source for U152 besides the spread of U152 emanating from the Roman Empire.
And, following on the above quote by Taranis, if we assume that U152 in the UK is from across the strait in Wallonia, Belgium ... then where did the Walloons originally come from?

I don't think the Walloons, per se, have anything to do with it. That's an ethno-linguistic designation that dates to a much later time. I think U-152 spread over much of France except the northwest, and as such could have formed a large part of the "continental Celts" that moved relatively late into the British Isles with the Belgae perhaps, or even earlier groups.

It's discussed here on this site:
http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_R1b_Y-DNA.shtml#S28-U152

Here is a map of it:
http://cdn.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup-R1b-S28.gif

Dorianfinder
19-04-15, 16:14
Do you think it may have been pre-Gallic U152 that crossed into Lombardy, or perhaps over time ... as would be suggested by the following wikipedia article on the Gauls. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauls

That would help make possible sense of the amount of U152 in Brittain (Normans)? And unique subclade of U152 in Iberia that suggests a founder-effect of soughts..

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/Gaul%2C_1st_century_BC.gif

Angela
19-04-15, 16:19
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)?

The Germanic people who came to Italy around 560 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 Langobard influence on the Italian language is a superstrate which didn't have much of an impact.

Dorianfinder
19-04-15, 16:28
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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Proven%C3%A7al_language) as its basis. The overarching sense of the term Lombard within Italy appears then to have been geographical and political rather than ethnic.

Angela
19-04-15, 16:51
Hence the fact that some linguists have suggested that the Gallo-Italic dialect known as Lombardic has Provençal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Proven%C3%A7al_language) 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.

Dorianfinder
19-04-15, 17:07
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?

Angela
19-04-15, 17:11
Hence the fact that some linguists have suggested that the Gallo-Italic dialect known as Lombardic has Provençal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Proven%C3%A7al_language) 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

Dorianfinder
19-04-15, 17:48
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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Proven%C3%A7al) 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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallo-Romance_languages) to the northwest (including French (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_language) and Occitan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occitan_language)) and the Italo-Romance languages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italo-Romance_languages) to the south (including standard Italian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_language)).

Angela
19-04-15, 17:57
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/threads/31090-Langobard-MtDna-in-Northern-Italy-%28Piemonte%29?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:
"
Italy, Iberia, and France."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] (http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1001555#pbio.1001555-Halsall1),[55] (http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1001555#pbio.1001555-Kobyliski1)."
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.

Dorianfinder
19-04-15, 18:03
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).

Dorianfinder
19-04-15, 18:15
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.

Pax Augusta
19-04-15, 18:36
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.

mihaitzateo
19-04-15, 18:54
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-%28Boattini-et-al-%29

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.

Pax Augusta
19-04-15, 19:02
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.

mihaitzateo
19-04-15, 19:06
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.

mihaitzateo
19-04-15, 19:09
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latins_%28Italic_tribe%29

Pax Augusta
19-04-15, 19:13
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.

Angela
19-04-15, 19:13
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.

Dorianfinder
19-04-15, 19:14
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.

Angela
19-04-15, 19:40
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=yW-GfElbafQC&pg=PA245&lpg=PA245&dq=lombard+invasion+of+italy&source=bl&ots=VZkFeeRA4L&sig=VitnHB0kgDQgJOtC_mE1CZPnMCE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=LeczVYuWKdDgsASd6IHADQ&ved=0CDkQ6AEwBTgK#v=onepage&q=lombard invasion of italy&f=false
http://www.ectechnano.com/the-dark-ages-the-lombard-invasion-illustrated-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?

Dorianfinder
19-04-15, 19:42
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.

Angela
19-04-15, 19:46
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.

mihaitzateo
19-04-15, 19:49
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.

Angela
19-04-15, 19:54
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.

Perhaps you didn't read my post carefully enough:
"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."

Italian is indisputably an Indo-European language of the Italo-Celtic variety. The Romans spoke Italic. They are therefore presumed to be descended at least in part from the Indo-Europeans. The Indo-European languages in Europe track with R1b and R1a. Therefore, the Romans almost certainly carried R1b. This is not news, people. We're supposed to be beyond the basics now of having to explain what the Indo-European languages are, or basic undisputed facts about history. Even in terms of genetics, if you're going to debate a topic like the one that is the subject of this thread you should have read and tried to understand Haak et al.

See Haak et al 2015
http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2015/02/10/013433

Angela
19-04-15, 20:03
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.

Apparently, a lot of peoples wanted to be descended from the Trojans, including the British.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brutus_of_Troy

Pax Augusta
19-04-15, 20:07
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'.

You're completely wrong. Lombard is a corruption of the word Langobardi and not the opposite (please, read the Paul the Deacon's Historia Langobardorum).



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.

There is no confusion in Italy about the modern-day Lombards and the Langobardi. The only confusion here is in your posts.

Pax Augusta
19-04-15, 20:09
Apparently, a lot of peoples wanted to be descended from the Trojans, including the British.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brutus_of_Troy

Very true. But as you know the Etruscans lived closer the Romans and not the British.

Dorianfinder
19-04-15, 20:15
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...

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?

Lombard is not Italian, it is a word that is accepted in every language to be of Germanic origin. Langobardi/Longobardi is simply a corruption of the same word because the early authors and people of Italy corrupted the word. Later generations were more literate and realized that Lombard should be written as Lombardi in Italian. This is a simple fact, there is no need for personal insults. I think you are better than that, nationalism has no place in such discussions and makes for partial moderation.

To assume that I am not Italian and therefore I cannot possibly understand is nationalistic and sentimental. Similarly, to assume that I do not know where the term Lombard originated from and therefore have nothing meaningful to contribute goes to show just how emotionally caught-up you have become. You lack self-control and expose yourself by insulting others in such a nasty manner.

Despite this discussion being in English you have consistently used the Italian term Langobardi for the Germanic Lombards. Why would you prefer to use the corruption in another language when the correct term exists in English. I can go on for 2 pages ... but it would be futile to discuss Italian history with you as you have proven yourself incapable of impartiality and basic courtesy.

Angela, I would like you to stop bullying and participate in the discussion. If you cannot respect the opinions of others on this forum then you should at least provide the space for discussion.

Angela
19-04-15, 20:16
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.

If you want one volume that does a very good job explaining the invasion of the "Langobardi" I would recommend the following
http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0631211977.html

Angela
19-04-15, 20:21
Lombard is not Italian, it is a word that is accepted in every language to be of Germanic origin. Langobardi/Longobardi is simply a corruption of the same word because the early authors and people of Italy corrupted the word. Later generations were more literate and realized that Lombard should be written as Lombardi in Italian. This is a simple fact, there is no need for personal insults. I think you are better than that, nationalism has no place in such discussions and makes for partial moderation.

To assume that I am not Italian and therefore I cannot possibly understand is nationalistic and sentimental. Similarly, to assume that I do not know where the term Lombard originated from and therefore have nothing meaningful to contribute goes to show just how emotionally caught-up you have become and lack of self-control.

Despite this discussion being in English you have consistently used the Italian term Langobardi for the Germanic Lombards. Why would you prefer to use the corruption in another language when the correct term exists in English. I can go on for 2 pages ... but it would be futile to discuss Italian history with you as you have proven yourself incapable of impartiality and basic courtesy.

Angela, I would like you to stop bullying and participate in the discussion. If you cannot respect the opinions of others on this forum then you should at least provide the space for discussion.


That is a very novel interpretation of what is going on here. I have asked you to provide any reference by academics....historians, linguists, geneticists...to support your speculations, speculations that are in direct contradiction to accepted history and linguistics. For example, there is a trail of archaeological evidence showing the movement of the Langobardi from Pannonia into Italy through the eastern corridor. I have seen no reference anywhere, by anyone, to them entering Italy from the northwest as a mostly Gaullish force of all things.* The Italian word for these people is Langobardi, Langobards if you prefer, which is the English term used in the Neil Christie book, and this is derived from the original Latin term, which is "Langobardum".

You haven't provided any academic proof calling any of this into question. Are we supposed to go against all excepted history and archaeology because you say so? You're free, of course, to keep writing these things. Just don't expect me to debate them with you.

You list yourself as a Hellene. Are you misrepresenting yourself?

Sile
19-04-15, 20:21
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)?

For what's its worth .
Mr Hammer ( less than a year ago ) claims U152 born in central Germany near the rhine river , he also placed the birth of U106 in the harz mountains ( border of czech and germany today ). Clearly then U152 is celtic firstly then italiac via celtic migration and U106 is lombard who also settled in eastern austria where 15% of U106 is found......but of the U106 , lombard are not the only tribe that carried this, as old-germanic tribes settled in frisia ( netherlands)


in regards to your points
#1 - some say longbards origins are in scania sweden
#3 - western longbards speak the original milanese dialect, east-lombards speaks with a venetian dialect ( bergamo, brescia, cremona etc ) where under Venice longer than they have been under Milan ( Bergamo is the best place to see this and also the least contaminated (< is this the best word ) by Italian language or customs

Dorianfinder
19-04-15, 20:26
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.

This is bullying and intimidation. Nobody should be ridiculed like this on a public forum.

Sile
19-04-15, 20:35
The Franco-Provençal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Proven%C3%A7al) 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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallo-Romance_languages) to the northwest (including French (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_language) and Occitan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occitan_language)) and the Italo-Romance languages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italo-Romance_languages) to the south (including standard Italian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_language)).

Occitan belongs to the L'Oc family and has no frankish ties ( germanic )...........it is in southern france.
Northern France speak L'Oil lanuguage

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proven%C3%A7al_dialect