PDA

View Full Version : Early Medieval Migrations into Northern Italy through uniparental markers



Angela
10-04-16, 22:09
This is another Boattini, Sarno et al paper. They use uniparental markers, especially the "Y" chromosome (str and snp markers), surname analysis, and extensive genealogical records to attempt a recreation of early medieval historical migration patterns into a subset of the Emilia-Romagna population, i.e. the members of "Partecipenze" near Bologna.

See:
Traces of medieval migrations in a socially stratified population from Northern Italy. Evidence from uniparental markers and deep-rooted pedigrees

http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v114/n2/full/hdy201477a.html

"Social and cultural factors had a critical role in determining the genetic structure of Europe. Therefore, socially stratified populations may help to focus on specific episodes of European demographic history. In this study, we use uniparental markers to analyse the genetic structure ofPartecipanza in San Giovanni in Persiceto (Northern Italy), a peculiar institution whose origins date back to the Middle Ages and whose members form the patrilineal descent of a group of founder families. From a maternal point of view (mtDNA), Partecipanza is genetically homogeneous with the rest of the population. However, we observed a significant differentiation for Y-chromosomes. In addition, by comparing 17 Y-STR profiles with deep-rooted paternal pedigrees, we estimated a Y-STR mutation rate equal to 3.90 * 10−3 mutations per STR per generation and an average generation duration time of 33.38 years. When we used these values for tentative dating, we estimated 1300-600 years ago for the origins of the Partecipanza. These results, together with a peculiar Y-chromosomal composition and historical evidence, suggest that Germanic populations (Lombards in particular) settled in the area during the Migration Period (400–800 ad, approximately) and may have had an important role in the foundation of this community."

"Partecipanze are an absolutely idiosyncratic way of sharing and devolving collective lands. These institutions originated in the Middle Ages and are still present in some areas of Northern Italy. The privilege to participate (i.e., to share the leased assets) is inherited following a gene-like pattern through exclusive admission granted to the descent of a group of founder families, usually following the paternal line (Zanarelli, 1992 (http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v114/n2/full/hdy201477a.html#bib41)). In this way, the members of Partecipanza conserved through the centuries their social and economic identity, potentially together with some of their genetic features."

The Supplementary Info can be found here:http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v114/n2/suppinfo/hdy201477s1.html

Among the people of this area near Bologna two y haplogroups have higher frequency among the elite "partecipanza" group than in the control group from the same area: I-L22 (16% vs 0), and J-M67(xM92) (14% vs 3%). U-152, although the most numerous both among the elite group and the control group, is lower among the elite group than among the control group (27% vs. 44%),

7675

Given the history of the partecipenza system in the area and its ties to a monastery established by the Lombards, plus the dating they've done, the authors have the following to say:

"Putting it all together, it seems plausible to relate historical and archaeological information with our molecular results, suggesting that a Lombard component may have had a key role in the foundation of Partecipanza."

I do think they're right in saying this is not some fossil population of Lombards. For one thing, as they put it, "Their [the Lombard] original genetic variability is still unknown and probably varied in time and space", and for another, the mtDna seems to be similar across all groups, so autosomally I doubt there would be much difference.

I find the yDna J-M67(xM22) particularly interesting. There are two clusters, one which they date to about 6000 BC, and which is present in both the "Partecipanza group" and the control group, and also in Germany, and one represented only in the elite group and only in one pedigree, whose closest modal haplotype they found in Apulia. I'm unsure what to make of this. Was the "J" found in the Indo-European warrior J-M67? Could it have entered Italy from the north? Or is this group in both Italy and Germany from the same migration that brought J2 to Sopot? I think that was also J-M67. What of the southern affiliated group?

Fwiw: this is what I could find on J-M67. If someone knows anything more specific, especially about the xM22 group, that would be great.

"J-M67J-M67 (Called J2f in older papers) has its highest frequencies associated with Nakh peoples (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakh_peoples). Found at very high (majority) frequencies among Ingush in Malgobek (87.4%), Chechens in Dagestan (58%), Chechens in Chechnya (56.8%) and Chechens in Malgobek, Ingushetia (50.9%) (Balanovsky 2011 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J-M172#CITEREFBalanovsky2011)). In the Caucasus, it is found at significant frequencies among Georgians (13.3%) (Semino 2004 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J-M172#CITEREFSemino2004)), Iron Ossetes (11.3%), South Caucasian Balkars (6.3%) (Semino 2004 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J-M172#CITEREFSemino2004)), Digor Ossetes (5.5%), Abkhaz (6.9%), and Cherkess (5.6%) (Balanovsky 2011 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J-M172#CITEREFBalanovsky2011)). It is also found at notable frequencies in the Mediterranean and Middle East, including Cretans (10.2%), North-central Italians (9.6%), Southern Italians (4.2%; only 0.8% among N. Italians), Anatolian Turks (2.7-5.4%), Greeks (4-4.3%), Albanians (3.6%), Ashkenazi Jews (4.9%), Sephardis (2.4%), Catalans (3.9%), Andalusians (3.2%), Calabrians (3.3%), Albanian Calabrians (8.9%) (see Di Giacomo 2004 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J-M172#CITEREFDi_Giacomo2004) and Semino 2004 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J-M172#CITEREFSemino2004))."

There are many groups of U-152, all dating to 5,000-4000 years ago.

As interesting as this is in terms of migrations, it's also interesting about what it says about social stratification. Are we looking at an ascendancy in this area at least since the 1500s, and probably back at least a thousand or fifteen hundred years before that?

This is part of what I meant when I said that the New World offered an opportunity for upward mobility that wasn't present in the Old World.

bicicleur
11-04-16, 11:30
There are many groups of U-152, all dating to 5,000-4000 years ago.



U-152 today is a very important clade in the northern half of Italy.

http://www.eupedia.com/genetics/italian_dna.shtml

It is unlikely to be the consequence of arrival of a single founding father in Italy 4-5000 years ago.
More likely is a more recent arrival of a large U-152 tribe in Italy with different subclades whose TMRCA is 5-4000 years ago.

The Lombards are a Germanic tribe, probably not U-152, I1-L22 and others is very possible.
Probably U-152 was there before and got well integrated into the Lombard community.

Angela
11-04-16, 15:15
Interesting also the virtual wipe out of "G" and "E" in this area.

7677

LeBrok
11-04-16, 16:40
For my liking Germanics wouldn't pull it off. Not with their numbers. I think U152 is due to Italics and Celtic invasion of the North. Even if they didn't replace half of population, there was enough time since for U152 to grow in numbers by some evolutionary advantage. Time and numbers point to Italo-Celts. Germanics, especially the ones from south, could have brought additional U152.

LeBrok
11-04-16, 16:46
Interesting also the virtual wipe out of "G" and "E" in this area.

7677
Attachment is not displaying correctly.

It might be the case that IE invaders too over best agricultural lands therefore majority of food production. After all they were farmers too. Perhaps this food access by U152 folks and hunger and malnutrition on G and E families could be responsible for U152 rise and G and E decline with time?

I and J of elite class could belong to couple of Germanic families, which continually had sons to our times. It might not be proportionally representative of Germanics. Just 2 lacky clades in privileged environment.

Angela
11-04-16, 17:45
Attachment is not displaying correctly.

It might be the case that IE invaders too over best agricultural lands therefore majority of food production. After all they were farmers too. Perhaps this food access by U152 folks and hunger and malnutrition on G and E families could be responsible for U152 rise and G and E decline with time?

I and J of elite class could belong to couple of Germanic families, which continually had sons to our times. It might not be proportionally representative of Germanics. Just 2 lacky clades in privileged environment.

I tried to fix the attachment twice. When I just clicked on it, it worked. If not, it's showing up as an attached thumbnail on post 1.

That may be true. They were careful to say that this is all tentative because we don't yet know what yDna was present among the Lombards. I think I1 is a pretty good bet , though.

I think you're right about U-152. Some southern Germanics might have carried some sub-clades of it, but I think a lot of it came with the Italics.

Just taking another look at the chart, about 67% various forms of R and I in the general population. Various forms of "J" from who knows where total about 19%.

bicicleur
11-04-16, 18:27
For my liking Germanics wouldn't pull it off. Not with their numbers. I think U152 is due to Italics and Celtic invasion of the North. Even if they didn't replace half of population, there was enough time since for U152 to grow in numbers by some evolutionary advantage. Time and numbers point to Italo-Celts. Germanics, especially the ones from south, could have brought additional U152.

7678

Italic people arrived in Italy - supposedly from the north of the Carpathian basin - before the Etrusks i.e. late bronze age, they lived south of the Etruscs.
First Celts - the Golaseccans arrived same time as Etruscs - early iron age and lived north of them (Lepontic language?)
So, Italics were not U-152, but probably mainly other R1b clades.
IMO U-152 were Celtic, maybe Gallic.

Angela
11-04-16, 19:25
7678

Italic people arrived in Italy - supposedly from the north of the Carpathian basin - before the Etrusks i.e. late bronze age, they lived south of the Etruscs.
First Celts - the Golaseccans arrived same time as Etruscs - early iron age and lived north of them (Lepontic language?)
So, Italics were not U-152, but probably mainly other R1b clades.
IMO U-152 were Celtic, maybe Gallic.

Possible, although Etruscan cities developed first in a core area south of the Arno, and then spread to the north and south, with cities around the Po being established very late and as a later strata. Felsina, for example, now Bologna, which is the area discussed in the paper, wasn' t settled until 510 BC. In less than 200 years, the Celts had arrived.

http://photos3.meetupstatic.com/photos/event/8/f/4/a/600_405216682.jpeg

http://www.britannica.com/place/Felsina

For all we know they might have been speaking something related to Ligurian before the arrival of the Etruscans and then later still the Celts.



This is an interactive map that shows all the Etruscan cities:
https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=zd7uIZeuVwZM.ksNhzjmsKAkM&hl=en

ThirdTerm
11-04-16, 23:06
Y-chromosomal hg I1-L22 is the distinctive mark of PAR, being highly frequent here (15.91%) whereas completely absent in SGP. A DAPC-based exploration of I1-L22 haplotypes from PAR and from comparison European populations revealed three well-differentiated clusters (Figure 2, Supplementary Table S5). Interestingly, all PAR I1-L22 haplotypes fall within the same cluster (cluster 2) together with a few haplotypes from South-Eastern Italy (1), Germany (1), Poland and Slovakia (4). Other clusters (1 and 3) are composed mainly by haplotypes from Germany and Poland, but cluster 1 includes most of the I1-L22 haplotypes from South-Eastern Italy and the Balkans, while cluster 3 is enriched in Brabant and North-Western Italy haplotypes. These results suggest that I1-L22 individuals from PAR share a recent common ancestor that could have been living around the age when the Partecipanza was established.


The Lombards originated in Scandinavia and invaded Italy in 568 CE, setting up the Lombard Kingdom in northern Italy. I1-L22 is the northern branch of hg I1 commonly found in Sweden and Norway and I1-L22 in Italy has Scandinavian roots as the authors tentatively speculated. Haplogroup R-U152 (R1b1b2a1b4) is most frequent (20-44%) in Switzerland, Italy and France and R-U152 is likely to be indigenous to northern Italy and other southern European countries. It's plausible that the Lombards or I1-L22 people (16%) admixed with the local Italian population with J-M67* (13%) and R-U152 (27%) in the Partecipanze (PAR), when the Lombard Kingdom was established.



These facts lead us to our second aim that was to reconstruct the time and the genetic origin of Partecipanza, as well as its implications for the genetic history of Italy and Europe. Differences between PAR and SGP are mainly determined by three Y-hgs: I1-L22, J2-M67* and R-U152. Frequency of Y-hg I1-L22 reaches 15.91% in PAR, being completely absent in SGP and rare in Italy (0.79%; Boattini et al., 2013). Furthermore, its frequency does not exceed 5% in all the considered comparison populations. As in the case of its parental clade I1-M253, I1-L22 is most frequently found in Northern Europe, around the Baltic sea, where it probably originated (Soares et al., 2010; Underhill et al., 2007).

Pax Augusta
11-04-16, 23:18
Italic people arrived in Italy - supposedly from the north of the Carpathian basin - before the Etrusks i.e. late bronze age, they lived south of the Etruscs.

Etruscans were a civiization not a ethnicity and they do descended mostly from the proto-Villanovans. The proto-Villanovan culture and people branched from the Urnfield culture of Central Europe. Etruscan cities correspond exactly to the previous proto-Villanovans cities.

bicicleur
12-04-16, 08:11
Etruscans were a civiization not a ethnicity and they do descended mostly from the proto-Villanovans. The proto-Villanovan culture and people branched from the Urnfield culture of Central Europe. Etruscan cities correspond exactly to the previous proto-Villanovans cities.

Many theories about the Etruscans, nobody knows realy.
These people spoke an isolate language, and out of the blue they had knowledge of iron smelting.
It is hard to believe there was no influence from outside.

Urnfield was Celtic or Italo-Celtic.

João Soares
12-04-16, 14:31
Could it be that this is another astonishing proof that HG # Ethnicities?? oh my... :startled:

Pax Augusta
12-04-16, 15:04
Many theories about the Etruscans, nobody knows realy.
These people spoke an isolate language, and out of the blue they had knowledge of iron smelting.
It is hard to believe there was no influence from outside.

Urnfield was Celtic or Italo-Celtic.

We already know enough to exclude many unfounded theories.

Aaron1981
12-04-16, 15:52
This is another Boattini, Sarno et al paper. They use uniparental markers, especially the "Y" chromosome (str and snp markers), surname analysis, and extensive genealogical records to attempt a recreation of early medieval historical migration patterns into a subset of the Emilia-Romagna population, i.e. the members of "Partecipenze" near Bologna.


The I1-L22 is probably significant with respect to Lombards, the J2 probably not. It's unlikely J2 was part of any migration movement of northern European peoples, at least not in any numeric strength. Perhaps the J2 belonged to some significant families that earned their rank through money. Perhaps early Christian missionary or some other means. Perhaps Rome? I don't know...

We've seen a I1 amongst early English Saxons (1 of 1). Some early aDNA (possibly a Germanic camp) from NE Italy, which I don't have the citation right now was I1. We've also seen early Migration period aDNA from STR predicted as I1. I think it's pretty clear, as predicted years ago, I1 was rich amongst the northern barbarian invaders.

Fire Haired14
13-04-16, 02:04
What is Partecipanza (https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partecipanza_agraria)? Is it a form of land ownership, where generation after generation, a select few families defined by paternal lineages are Partecipanza? If so, this is interesting, because it still exists and is evident in Y DNA. The I1-L22 is evident Lombards were involved in the begging of this system, but the rest of their Y DNA is typical for Italy.

Here's frequency of other Y DNA the Lombards probably had a lot of, in Partecipanza and non-Partecipanza.

Partecipanza: R1b M269(xU152) 12.5%(11), R1a 3.4%(3), I2a2a-M223 3.4%(3)

Control: R1b M269(xU152) 10%(6), R1a 3.3%(2), I2a2a-M223 1.7%(1)

Tomenable
13-04-16, 02:54
Very interesting thread.

I1a1b (L22) was indeed most likely the main haplogroup of the Lombards:

J2a1b (M67) could be Iranics or Huns who came together with Germanics:

Despite relatively wide CIs (Table 3), our estimates confirm with what is currently known about the historic origins of Partecipanza, pointing at a period comprised between 1300 and 600 years ago. Interestingly, the upper bound coincides with the Migration Period, and in particular with the settling of Ostrogoths and Lombards in Italy (493 AD and 568 AD, respectively). (...)

The area of San Giovanni in Persiceto became part of the Lombard kingdom relatively late (728 ad, under King Aistulf) and their rule lasted only half a century, after having been defeated by the French King Charlemagne in 776 ad (Capitani, 2009). Nevertheless, a number of historical facts seem to link this area with Lombard settlements. Among them, the most relevant involves the Abbey of Nonantola, one of the most powerful monastic centres of the area. The Abbey was founded by Lombard kings in 752 ad (Bottazzi, 2003). Since then, emphyteutic grants from Nonantola (first documented in 1170 ad) had a relevant role in the formation of the assets of Partecipanza. San Giovanni in Persiceto, according to some scholars, was the seat of a Lombard Duchy in the second half of the eighth century (Bottazzi, 2003; Santos Salazar, 2006). Eventually, the case of a burial site discovered in the early 1960s but originally misinterpreted as a recent mass grave has been reported. This funerary evidence exhibits a number of Germanic features and has been recently radiocarbon dated to ~1000 years ago (D'Adamo and Pedrini, 2013).

Putting it all together, it seems plausible to relate historical and archaeological information with our molecular results, suggesting that a Lombard component may have had a key role in the foundation of Partecipanza.

As it is obvious, we are not implying that hg I1-L22 coincides with ancient Lombards. Their original genetic variability is still unknown and probably varied in time and space. It is anyway reasonable to believe that I1-L22 was an important part of this [Lombard] background.

Presumed Lombard migration route:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5e/Lombard_Migration.jpg/220px-Lombard_Migration.jpg

On the other hand, frequency of R1b-U152 is almost two times lower in the control group than in the elite group:

https://s22.postimg.org/shfar7ei9/Y+haplogroups+Partecipanza+group+vs+control+grou.p ng

Tomenable
13-04-16, 02:59
We've also seen early Migration period aDNA from STR predicted as I1

Can you give a link to that?

Sile
13-04-16, 08:17
Very interesting thread.

I1a1b (L22) was indeed most likely the main haplogroup of the Lombards:

J2a1b (M67) could be Iranics or Huns who came together with Germanics:

Despite relatively wide CIs (Table 3), our estimates confirm with what is currently known about the historic origins of Partecipanza, pointing at a period comprised between 1300 and 600 years ago. Interestingly, the upper bound coincides with the Migration Period, and in particular with the settling of Ostrogoths and Lombards in Italy (493 AD and 568 AD, respectively). (...)

The area of San Giovanni in Persiceto became part of the Lombard kingdom relatively late (728 ad, under King Aistulf) and their rule lasted only half a century, after having been defeated by the French King Charlemagne in 776 ad (Capitani, 2009). Nevertheless, a number of historical facts seem to link this area with Lombard settlements. Among them, the most relevant involves the Abbey of Nonantola, one of the most powerful monastic centres of the area. The Abbey was founded by Lombard kings in 752 ad (Bottazzi, 2003). Since then, emphyteutic grants from Nonantola (first documented in 1170 ad) had a relevant role in the formation of the assets of Partecipanza. San Giovanni in Persiceto, according to some scholars, was the seat of a Lombard Duchy in the second half of the eighth century (Bottazzi, 2003; Santos Salazar, 2006). Eventually, the case of a burial site discovered in the early 1960s but originally misinterpreted as a recent mass grave has been reported. This funerary evidence exhibits a number of Germanic features and has been recently radiocarbon dated to ~1000 years ago (D'Adamo and Pedrini, 2013).

Putting it all together, it seems plausible to relate historical and archaeological information with our molecular results, suggesting that a Lombard component may have had a key role in the foundation of Partecipanza.

As it is obvious, we are not implying that hg I1-L22 coincides with ancient Lombards. Their original genetic variability is still unknown and probably varied in time and space. It is anyway reasonable to believe that I1-L22 was an important part of this [Lombard] background.

Presumed Lombard migration route:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5e/Lombard_Migration.jpg/220px-Lombard_Migration.jpg

On the other hand, frequency of R1b-U152 is almost two times lower in the control group than in the elite group:

https://s22.postimg.org/shfar7ei9/Y+haplogroups+Partecipanza+group+vs+control+grou.p ng


All the PAR group should be looked at for any lombard descendants not jut I-L22

Tomenable
13-04-16, 09:26
All the PAR group should be looked at for any lombard descendants not jut I-L22

The others don't differ from the general population, so they are probably due to Non-Paternity Events, nobilitation of locals, descent from Non-Lombard barbarians, etc. From the beginning of its existence the group could contain locals (see what historians write about the formation of elites in barbarian kingdoms). Only lineages statistically different from the control group are informative.

Paul the Deacon wrote that Lombards incorporated men from various other tribes and peoples to their community:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_the_Deacon

Those other haplogroups are likely from such peoples (including also natives of Italy), not from "original" Lombards.

Sile
13-04-16, 11:51
The others don't differ from the general population, so they are probably due to Non-Paternity Events, nobilitation of locals, descent from Non-Lombard barbarians, etc. From the beginning of its existence the group could contain locals (see what historians write about the formation of elites in barbarian kingdoms). Only lineages statistically different from the control group are informative.

Paul the Deacon wrote that Lombards incorporated men from various other tribes and peoples to their community:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_the_Deacon

Those other haplogroups are likely from such peoples (including also natives of Italy), not from "original" Lombards.

while the goths had no issue with north-eastern Italy, they devastated the people in Lombardy Before the Lombards arrived a generation later.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gothic_War_%28535%E2%80%93554%29

Basically a generation after these wars the lombards arrived to a place which was named after them which was bare of the local populace. The lombards after settling there bagame a significant percentage of the people

bicicleur
13-04-16, 14:07
while the goths had no issue with north-eastern Italy, they devastated the people in Lombardy Before the Lombards arrived a generation later.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gothic_War_%28535%E2%80%93554%29

Basically a generation after these wars the lombards arrived to a place which was named after them which was bare of the local populace. The lombards after settling there bagame a significant percentage of the people

how many were the Lombards themselves, when they arrived ?

Maciamo
13-04-16, 14:51
Very interesting study.

First of all, I think we shouldn't put too much weight in the percentages reported, as the sample sizes are small and it only shows a snapshot of on slice of society in one city at one particular time in history.

What we can say is that historical Germanic migrations, mostly of Ostrogoths and Lombards, did bring I1 and I2-M223 to Italy, and probably also R1a (I explained before that many Italian R1a seem to have Proto-Slavic rather than Germanic origin, and were probably tribes from Poland and Ukraine absorbed by the Goths before they moved into the Roman Empire).

I am surprised that the percentage of R1bxU152 is so low, and frankly rather disappointed that they didn't test for U106 in a study supposed to assess the impact of Germanic migrations. Considering that North Italy has a fair share of R1b-L23 and R1b-P312 other than U152, it would have been useful to clearly separate U106.

The high frequency of J2-M67 is intriguing, but might simply be due to a founder effect in the Partecipanzeand could be an ancient local lineage like U152. The other possibility, as Tomenable suggested, is that it represents Hunnic, Alanic, Sarmatian or Scythian lineages assimilated by the Goths or the Lombards before they reached Italy. I had already suggested that part of these Central Asian and Steppe invaders had brought Q1a to Europe (with the Huns) and that a back migration of Goths to Scandinavia brought assimilated Hunnic Q1a to Scandinavia. It could be the same for J2a, which also peaks in southern Sweden and at the Franco-German border (Rhine) just like Q1a.

Goga
13-04-16, 15:55
What is interesting to me is that right after the fall of the Roman Empire there was already a lot Germanic DNA in Northern Italy. So it is likely that even during the Roman Empire era Northern Italy was already populated by the Germanic refugees and not only Celtic refugees (tribes).

Goga
13-04-16, 16:00
Some of the non-native / non-local Y-DNA lineages in Lombardy could be also brought by the Celtic tribes and not only by the Germanic tribes.

Angela
13-04-16, 17:00
I think it's important to not get ahead of the evidence. It seems very probable that the "Lombards" carried yDna I-L22. We don't know what other y lineages they carried by the time they reached Italy, although based on Paul the Deacon there were probably several. We know, for example, that the invasion force included Saxons, Pannonians, Heruls, Noricans, Bulgars etc. There are also the prior arriving Goths to consider, who might have carried similar haplogroups.

As for total numbers, they're all over the map, from 100,000 to 500,000 (including women and children). The best discussion of the issue I've seen is in Peter Heather's book: "Empires and Barbarians". His pithy comment is that most of the numbers "aren't worth a damn".

All this talk of population replacement is also premature. To the best of my recollection no academic posits total replacement anywhere, not even in north eastern Italy where there is the most evidence of Lombard settlement (and yDna I1). The estimates for the pre-Lombard population are also all over the map.

Our map here at Eupedia shows an average total number for I1 as 7% in Northern Italy and 4% in Tuscany. There is going to be variation even within northern Italy.
http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml

We also have a thread dedicated to I1 in Italy. It can be found here:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/28667-Distribution-of-I1-in-Italy-(Boattini-et-al-)

According to Boattini, which however well done used small numbers of samples, it reaches 10.5% in Bologna as a whole, 17.5% in Vicenza, much lower numbers elsewhere. Other studies show around 3-4% in most of Sicily, but 18.75% in Caccamo. And so it goes.

A prior paper discusses Lombard dna in Italy. The area is in the northwest: Piemonte. The paper can be found here:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4312042/

It's discussed in this eupedia thread:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/31090-Langobard-MtDna-in-Northern-Italy-%28Piemonte%29?highlight=Lombard+mtDna

The authors compared actual ancient Lombard dna to that of communities in the area. Unfortunately, they have so far only published mtDna results. They show a stratification where the members of a Partecipanza show descent from the "Lombards", but the other communities don't show the same kind of relationship.

Just so we have a visual, these are the contracts dating back to the 12th century:
http://www.consorziodeipartecipantisgpersiceto.it/foto/DSC_9009.jpg
There are a number of them in and around Bologna. This shows the typical land and farm buildings:
http://www.partecipanza.org/immagini/v4_r1_c1.jpg


Here is the headquarters for the particular one studied:
http://www.consorziodeipartecipantisgpersiceto.it/foto/DSC_3797.jpg

Here are some of the presidents:

http://taccuinocentese.it/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/gruppo-minoranza-partecipanza.jpg

http://www.areacentese.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/14.jpg

http://www.budrionext.it/materiale/nanni2.jpg

A Consorzio:
http://lanuovaferrara.gelocal.it/polopoly_fs/1.11437478.1431824017!/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/detail_558/image.jpg

They all look like a normal cross section of Emilians to me.

Fire Haired14
13-04-16, 21:48
Some of the non-native / non-local Y-DNA lineages in Lombardy could be also brought by the Celtic tribes and not only by the Germanic tribes.

French have hardly any I1, so it is unlikely Gauls brought much I1. The I1 that does exist in France, can be explained by Germans. It surprising how unlike Germans, the French are, so Rome probably protected them from German migrations.

LeBrok
14-04-16, 04:14
French have hardly any I1, so it is unlikely Gauls brought much I1. The I1 that does exist in France, can be explained by Germans. It surprising how unlike Germans, the French are, so Rome probably protected them from German migrations. You mean that germanic tribe of Franks, who conquered "France", didn't have much I1?

Fire Haired14
14-04-16, 04:30
You mean that germanic tribe of Franks, who conquered "France", didn't have much I1?

Franks definitely had a lot of I1. I was pointing out that there's little I1 in modern France, meaning Germans never made a big Y DNA impact on France and Gauls are an unlikely source for I1 in Italy.

MOESAN
14-04-16, 11:04
according to Maciamo: Y-I1: Brittany:8%, Normandy 7%, Flandres-Artois (north):13%, Alsace: 8%;
surely 2/3 of these Y-I1 are from Germanics, but not all of them (Brittany had contacts with Vikings, but its anthropologic results compared to Normandy cannot explain this situation by more Vikings or more Franks!) We can presume that Belgae were the most provided for Y-I1 even if relatively weakly.
That said I agree the possible percentage of 4-5% I1 among Celts cannot produce huge %s in Italy

bicicleur
14-04-16, 12:45
You mean that germanic tribe of Franks, who conquered "France", didn't have much I1?

there were Franks on both sides of the river Rhine
the Franks conquered and founded France but they didn't replace the population
they were an elite but needed other administrators to help govern the country, as they were illiterate themselves
they left a big part of the Roman inheritage intact

the Franks may have been I1, without bringing much of it into France

if I recall correctly, some Merovingian (early Frankish dynasty) DNA turned out to be G2a

Goga
14-04-16, 13:07
French have hardly any I1, so it is unlikely Gauls brought much I1. The I1 that does exist in France, can be explained by Germans. It surprising how unlike Germans, the French are, so Rome probably protected them from German migrations.
Of course, without Y-DNA hg. 'I' Germanic tribes would never be Germanic. Y-DNA hg. I1 is part of the Germanic race. But it could be that some haplogroups in Lombardy are not from Germanic tribes, but from Celtic tribes who settled in Northern Italy before the Germanic refugees arrived.

I think that the hg. I1 in Northern Italy is most probably from the Germanic refugees, true. But it is wrong to assume that some haplogroups can't be from the Celts because of the low distribution among the modern Celts. It could be that some ancient Celtic tribes or clans that migrated into the Northern Italy belonged mostly to the minor haplogroups. Clans & tribes have mostly a patriarchate construction and most males are paternally related to each other. The mixing only occurs if you get the confederation of different tribes.

I do take myself as an example. I do belong to a small clan of people (a couple of dozens of families/homes - villages) where all males share the same common paternal ancestry. And I do belong to 'maybe?' a rare haplogroup of my ethnicity. So if all my clan members had to flee to a saver place and start a new life and grow in population, native people would wrongly assume that all folks in the original homeland of the newcomers belong mostly to the same rare haplogroup where my clan belongs to.

MOESAN
14-04-16, 14:02
there were Franks on both sides of the river Rhine
the Franks conquered and founded France but they didn't replace the population
they were an elite but needed other administrators to help govern the country, as they were illiterate themselves
they left a big part of the Roman inheritage intact

the Franks may have been I1, without bringing much of it into France

if I recall correctly, some Merovingian (early Frankish dynasty) DNA turned out to be G2a

That said, the Germanic imput in N and E France is far to be neglictible (Franks, Vikings°Saxons, Alamans, Burgundians). Placenames and some dialectal evolutions and classical (but valuable) physical atrhopology show all this imput, I think it was about 15 to 30% according to North or Eastern regions of France. I posted in other threads about the Frans density of placenames in North/Northeastern France. Three generations ago, Northerners of France seemd (just a bit) more "germaniclike" than Walloons, and tehre were still differences in Normandy between the 'bocage' countrymen and coasts inhabitants.
I think the most of Western Germanics were principally Y-R1b-U106, Y-I1 + some Y-I2a2 and rare Y-R1a. Nothing excludes they took some earlier "autochtonous" Y-HGs (R-U152, Y-G, Y-I2a1 on their road towards South. In fact Y-I2a2 was pre-Germanic and could have been absorbed by Celts as well as by Germanics.
to go back to the core of this thread, the sepcific population studied in Italy could have known some internal drift concerning Y-Haplos. But a mix of diverses successive elites could explain the today results too. Concerning Y-J2-M67, it could have been part of the first Italics (mixed with Y-R1b-U152 and others maybe); why not think in Etruscans too?
Saying U152 was only Celtic is wrong I think. Ligurians and Italics had of it, Ipresume. The high presence in Corsica doesn't seem a Celtic inheritage, by instance.

Aaron1981
14-04-16, 18:54
there were Franks on both sides of the river Rhine
the Franks conquered and founded France but they didn't replace the population
they were an elite but needed other administrators to help govern the country, as they were illiterate themselves
they left a big part of the Roman inheritage intact

the Franks may have been I1, without bringing much of it into France

if I recall correctly, some Merovingian (early Frankish dynasty) DNA turned out to be G2a

Certainly. I suspect you are referring to the House of Bourbon (I suspect G-P303) who descend from a French noble, not William the Conqueror. It probably has to do with the fact LBK collapsed in central Europe along with many of the Near Eastern YDNA lineages. Otherwise, we'd all be 90% EEF or Stuttgart clones right now bearing higher frequencies of G2a, E-V13 and J2 lineages.