Lombard DNA in Italy

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).
 
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.
 
@ 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).
 
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.

548px-Erster_und_Zweiter_Gotenkrieg.png
 
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/wikiped...g.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).
 
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?
 
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
 
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.
 
germanic tribes.jpg

Lombards belong to the VINDILI linguistic tribes ( Vandals ) and are East-Germanic
 
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 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
 
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!)
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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
 

This thread has been viewed 235767 times.

Back
Top