Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 4 of 13 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 317

Thread: Lombard DNA in Italy

  1. #76
    Regular Member Achievements:
    OverdriveVeteran10000 Experience Points
    zanipolo's Avatar
    Join Date
    22-03-11
    Posts
    2,073
    Points
    22,792
    Level
    46
    Points: 22,792, Level: 46
    Level completed: 25%, Points required for next Level: 758
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    T1a2 - Z19945
    MtDNA haplogroup
    K1a4o

    Ethnic group
    Down Under
    Country: Australia



    Quote Originally Posted by Vallicanus View Post
    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?
    Father's Mtdna H95a1
    Grandfather Mtdna T2b24
    Great Grandfather Mtdna T1a1e
    GMother paternal side YDna R1b-S8172
    Mother's YDna R1a-Z282

  2. #77
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    26-01-09
    Posts
    624
    Points
    10,619
    Level
    31
    Points: 10,619, Level: 31
    Level completed: 10%, Points required for next Level: 631
    Overall activity: 1.0%


    Country: UK - Scotland



    Quote Originally Posted by zanipolo View Post
    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.

  3. #78
    Regular Member Achievements:
    OverdriveVeteran10000 Experience Points
    zanipolo's Avatar
    Join Date
    22-03-11
    Posts
    2,073
    Points
    22,792
    Level
    46
    Points: 22,792, Level: 46
    Level completed: 25%, Points required for next Level: 758
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    T1a2 - Z19945
    MtDNA haplogroup
    K1a4o

    Ethnic group
    Down Under
    Country: Australia



    Quote Originally Posted by Vallicanus View Post
    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

  4. #79
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsTagger Second ClassOverdriveVeteran25000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    07-11-12
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,383
    Points
    27,727
    Level
    51
    Points: 27,727, Level: 51
    Level completed: 17%, Points required for next Level: 923
    Overall activity: 3.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1b2a* (inferred)

    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by zanipolo View Post
    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.

  5. #80
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    26-01-09
    Posts
    624
    Points
    10,619
    Level
    31
    Points: 10,619, Level: 31
    Level completed: 10%, Points required for next Level: 631
    Overall activity: 1.0%


    Country: UK - Scotland



    Quote Originally Posted by zanipolo View Post
    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?

  6. #81
    Regular Member Achievements:
    OverdriveVeteran10000 Experience Points
    zanipolo's Avatar
    Join Date
    22-03-11
    Posts
    2,073
    Points
    22,792
    Level
    46
    Points: 22,792, Level: 46
    Level completed: 25%, Points required for next Level: 758
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    T1a2 - Z19945
    MtDNA haplogroup
    K1a4o

    Ethnic group
    Down Under
    Country: Australia



    Quote Originally Posted by Taranis View Post
    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?

  7. #82
    Regular Member Achievements:
    OverdriveVeteran10000 Experience Points
    zanipolo's Avatar
    Join Date
    22-03-11
    Posts
    2,073
    Points
    22,792
    Level
    46
    Points: 22,792, Level: 46
    Level completed: 25%, Points required for next Level: 758
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    T1a2 - Z19945
    MtDNA haplogroup
    K1a4o

    Ethnic group
    Down Under
    Country: Australia



    Quote Originally Posted by Vallicanus View Post
    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?

  8. #83
    Regular Member Achievements:
    OverdriveVeteran10000 Experience Points
    zanipolo's Avatar
    Join Date
    22-03-11
    Posts
    2,073
    Points
    22,792
    Level
    46
    Points: 22,792, Level: 46
    Level completed: 25%, Points required for next Level: 758
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    T1a2 - Z19945
    MtDNA haplogroup
    K1a4o

    Ethnic group
    Down Under
    Country: Australia



    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

  9. #84
    Regular Member Achievements:
    7 days registered100 Experience PointsOverdrive

    Join Date
    29-01-12
    Posts
    43


    Country: USA - Colorado



    Quote Originally Posted by Taranis View Post
    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.
    Last edited by corinth; 02-02-12 at 03:47. Reason: spelling

  10. #85
    Regular Member Achievements:
    7 days registered100 Experience PointsOverdrive

    Join Date
    29-01-12
    Posts
    43


    Country: USA - Colorado



    Quote Originally Posted by GloomyGonzales View Post
    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.

  11. #86
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    26-01-09
    Posts
    624
    Points
    10,619
    Level
    31
    Points: 10,619, Level: 31
    Level completed: 10%, Points required for next Level: 631
    Overall activity: 1.0%


    Country: UK - Scotland



    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.

  12. #87
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    23-07-11
    Posts
    131
    Points
    6,293
    Level
    23
    Points: 6,293, Level: 23
    Level completed: 49%, Points required for next Level: 257
    Overall activity: 5.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1a

    Country: Russian Federation



    Quote Originally Posted by corinth View Post
    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.

  13. #88
    Regular Member Achievements:
    7 days registered100 Experience PointsOverdrive

    Join Date
    29-01-12
    Posts
    43


    Country: USA - Colorado



    Quote Originally Posted by GloomyGonzales View Post
    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.

  14. #89
    Regular Member Achievements:
    7 days registered100 Experience PointsOverdrive

    Join Date
    29-01-12
    Posts
    43


    Country: USA - Colorado



    Quote Originally Posted by Vallicanus View Post
    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.

  15. #90
    Regular Member Achievements:
    OverdriveVeteran10000 Experience Points
    zanipolo's Avatar
    Join Date
    22-03-11
    Posts
    2,073
    Points
    22,792
    Level
    46
    Points: 22,792, Level: 46
    Level completed: 25%, Points required for next Level: 758
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    T1a2 - Z19945
    MtDNA haplogroup
    K1a4o

    Ethnic group
    Down Under
    Country: Australia



    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=...enetic&f=false

  16. #91
    Regular Member Achievements:
    OverdriveVeteran10000 Experience Points
    zanipolo's Avatar
    Join Date
    22-03-11
    Posts
    2,073
    Points
    22,792
    Level
    46
    Points: 22,792, Level: 46
    Level completed: 25%, Points required for next Level: 758
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    T1a2 - Z19945
    MtDNA haplogroup
    K1a4o

    Ethnic group
    Down Under
    Country: Australia



    Quote Originally Posted by GloomyGonzales View Post
    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

  17. #92
    Regular Member Achievements:
    OverdriveVeteran10000 Experience Points
    zanipolo's Avatar
    Join Date
    22-03-11
    Posts
    2,073
    Points
    22,792
    Level
    46
    Points: 22,792, Level: 46
    Level completed: 25%, Points required for next Level: 758
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    T1a2 - Z19945
    MtDNA haplogroup
    K1a4o

    Ethnic group
    Down Under
    Country: Australia



    Quote Originally Posted by corinth View Post
    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

  18. #93
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    26-01-09
    Posts
    624
    Points
    10,619
    Level
    31
    Points: 10,619, Level: 31
    Level completed: 10%, Points required for next Level: 631
    Overall activity: 1.0%


    Country: UK - Scotland



    Quote Originally Posted by zanipolo View Post
    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=...enetic&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.

  19. #94
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    26-01-09
    Posts
    624
    Points
    10,619
    Level
    31
    Points: 10,619, Level: 31
    Level completed: 10%, Points required for next Level: 631
    Overall activity: 1.0%


    Country: UK - Scotland



    Quote Originally Posted by corinth View Post

    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.

  20. #95
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    26-01-09
    Posts
    624
    Points
    10,619
    Level
    31
    Points: 10,619, Level: 31
    Level completed: 10%, Points required for next Level: 631
    Overall activity: 1.0%


    Country: UK - Scotland



    I agree with Zanipolo that U-152 is of Ligurian/Helvetic (or Ligurian-Rhaetian even) origin with some Gallic mix.

  21. #96
    Regular Member Achievements:
    OverdriveVeteran10000 Experience Points
    zanipolo's Avatar
    Join Date
    22-03-11
    Posts
    2,073
    Points
    22,792
    Level
    46
    Points: 22,792, Level: 46
    Level completed: 25%, Points required for next Level: 758
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    T1a2 - Z19945
    MtDNA haplogroup
    K1a4o

    Ethnic group
    Down Under
    Country: Australia



    Quote Originally Posted by Vallicanus View Post
    Ancient Venetic and medieval High German come from 2 different time frames and 2 different branches of IE languages so your view is erroneous.
    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

  22. #97
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    26-01-09
    Posts
    624
    Points
    10,619
    Level
    31
    Points: 10,619, Level: 31
    Level completed: 10%, Points required for next Level: 631
    Overall activity: 1.0%


    Country: UK - Scotland



    Quote Originally Posted by zanipolo View Post
    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.

  23. #98
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsTagger Second ClassOverdriveVeteran25000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    07-11-12
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,383
    Points
    27,727
    Level
    51
    Points: 27,727, Level: 51
    Level completed: 17%, Points required for next Level: 923
    Overall activity: 3.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1b2a* (inferred)

    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by corinth View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Taranis; 04-02-12 at 15:06.

  24. #99
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsTagger Second ClassOverdriveVeteran25000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    07-11-12
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,383
    Points
    27,727
    Level
    51
    Points: 27,727, Level: 51
    Level completed: 17%, Points required for next Level: 923
    Overall activity: 3.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1b2a* (inferred)

    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by corinth View Post
    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.

  25. #100
    Regular Member Achievements:
    7 days registered100 Experience PointsOverdrive

    Join Date
    29-01-12
    Posts
    43


    Country: USA - Colorado



    Quote Originally Posted by zanipolo View Post
    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.
    Last edited by corinth; 04-02-12 at 06:13. Reason: fix quote

Page 4 of 13 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. The best place in ITALY :
    By Crooks in forum Italy & Greece
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 25-09-19, 15:55
  2. Have you been to Italy ?
    By Maciamo in forum Italy & Greece
    Replies: 61
    Last Post: 20-03-19, 20:38
  3. Places to see in Italy
    By Brad VanGuard in forum Italy & Greece
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 04-08-15, 13:59
  4. Italy - GOES BUST!
    By edao in forum European Economy
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 27-02-13, 16:29
  5. Italy against the Jews
    By Drac in forum European Culture & History
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 19-07-11, 17:55

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •