Ancient Lombard Dna from Szolad and Collegno

I have no idea where you get this stuff. Don't you read other people's posts?
The Romans with whom they were in contact were the Eastern Romans, the Byzantines.
They weren't given the right to enter Pannonia until 535 and left in 568.
This is the second time I've highlighted it.
If you have no source for a contradictory view then you're making it up, and you know what I told you about that.
Find a source, or retract the comment. I'll give you some time to do one or the other, or you're going to get an infraction.
You have to stop confusing other people.
we now down to threats !
http://www.lottogigi.it/c/s/Schede/SCHEDE BIOGRAFICHE,I LONGOBARDI.htm
I will not waste my time in supplying every post.
.
see on the net .. the fifth king of lombards Gudeoc
.
a summary below.........they entered Pannonia permanently , previous to this period it was in and out
487 - 488
Gudeoc rules the Langobards at the time when Romano-German general and emperor, Odoacer, destroys the Germanic Rugii, who had formerly been subjugated by the Huns. The Langobards migrate into the former Rugii territory, in modern Lower Austria, north of the Danube, and west of Korneuburg, to fill this vacuum. The area is part of the westernmost areas of Pannonia. The move may also be a way of removing themselves from Heruli dominance, and comes at an ideal time, as the Ostrogoths are themselves migrating into Italy for create a kingdom of their own. The Langobards clearly take note of this last event.

if you take history in a summarised form, then do not blame me.

http://thule-italia.org/Nordica/Paul the Deacon - History of the Lombards (1907) [EN].pdf?lbisphpreq=1

Colanda is generally considered, however, to be Gothland,
and as the Langobards were found in Pannonia in the year 166 at the time of the war with Marcus
Aurelius, and as the Goths emigrated to the Euxine probably about the middle of the second century,
Hodgkin (V, 101) considers it probable that the Langobards at this time were hovering about the skirts of
the Carpathians rather than that they had returned to Bardengau. The fact that when they were next heard
from, they were occupying Rugiland east of Noricum, on the north shore of the Danube, confirms this
view.
 
Sorry, I left out some important and clarifying information from the Supplement:

"Pannonia hadfallen first under Hunnic, then under Ostrogothic control, when the Ostrogoths movedinto the Balkans in 473. Soon after, in 476, Odoacer, a Roman commander of barbarianorigin in Italy who led a mixed army of Heruli, Rugii and others, overthrew the last WestRoman emperor and ruled Italy as king and patricius by arrangement with the EastRoman emperor in Constantinople. He exerted loose control over the former Romanprovinces to the north and east including Pannonia. The population of the region thuspresumably comprised descendants of Roman provincials as well as members of thevarious barbarian populations that had entered the region over the previous twocenturies2–4."

The length of stay by the Langobards in Szabo was only one generation.

"The small population settled for only one14generation in Pannonia at the shore of Lake Balaton and therefore appears to have beenvery mobile - especially the women indicate isotopically and genetically heterogeneousbackgrounds"

Also, "Most of the Longobard-period burial grounds in Pannonia are located nearformer Roman villas, forts and camps, and the Szólád cemetery seems not to be anexception, since there are hints of a Roman villa nearby."

As to how and why and when they got to Pannonia:

"in 535 the Byzantine (East Roman Empire)invaded Italy and began a reconquest under Emperor Justinian I. From around this time,Byzantine diplomacy began to develop treaties with the Longobards in order to isolatethe Ostrogoths and to counter the Gepids, another barbarian people along the Danube and3Tisa Rivers, and granted them the “city of Noricum and the fortifications in Pannonia aswell as other towns and a great amount of money”."

"Seventh-century sources attribute the Longobard invasion of Italy in 568 toan invitation issued to the Longobard King Alboin by the Roman commander Narses,although this is not mentioned in sixth-century sources and is greeted with skepticism bymodern scholars2, p. 98-100). It was clear that the battered infrastructure in Pannonia4could not meet the ambitions of a growing Longobard army."

From that it doesn't seem that they spent more than about a generation in Pannonia as a whole, i.e 535 to 568.


"The invasion met with surprisingly little organizedRoman resistance, but still the Longobard conquest of parts of Italy was a poorlyorganized and long-drawn out affair. The main army moved westward and took Pavia,which would later become the Longobard capital, after a siege, but did not move on toattack Ravenna or Rome. Instead, Alboin’s army began to fall apart into separate bandsled by individual dukes who went their own ways, some into southern Italy and othersinto Burgundy, and some straight into Roman service."

"c Paul the Deacon wrote a much fuller history of the Longobards7, drawing on theOrigo Gentis Langobardorum, the now-lost history of Secundus, and otherseventh-century sources. His account, although written over two centuries or more afterthe events it recounts, has nevertheless been taken, often uncritically, as a reliableaccount of Longobard history, a position increasingly disputed8,9. Concerning theinvasion of Italy, he states that Alboin’s invading army included not only Longobards butGepids, Bulgars, Sarmatians, Pannonians, Suevi, Noricans, and others6,10."

Emphasis mine.

Don't these results suggest that, indeed, they were more of a tribal confederation which possibly adopted the name of the dominant ethnicity (Lombards) but also included and accepted other peoples even if in a different social status/role? I doubt all those "southern" individuals were just servants in a highly militarized, mobile and warlike society in the midst of a long-distance and violent migration, where they would need many alliances to conquer very populated, even if decadent, regions.

I think that it is at least realistic that those southern individuals were more lowly members of the Lombard tribal confederative system originally belonging to independent tribes but still maintaining, at least initially, their distinctive ethnic identity (maybe Pannonians or even Balkanic tribes like "free" Dacians and newcomers like Bulgars), like many others before and afterwards (think of Avars, Bulgars, most Turkic and Mongol confederatioins)
 
we now down to threats !
http://www.lottogigi.it/c/s/Schede/SCHEDE BIOGRAFICHE,I LONGOBARDI.htm
I will not waste my time in supplying every post.
.
see on the net .. the fifth king of lombards Gudeoc
.
a summary below.........they entered Pannonia permanently , previous to this period it was in and out
487 - 488
Gudeoc rules the Langobards at the time when Romano-German general and emperor, Odoacer, destroys the Germanic Rugii, who had formerly been subjugated by the Huns. The Langobards migrate into the former Rugii territory, in modern Lower Austria, north of the Danube, and west of Korneuburg, to fill this vacuum. The area is part of the westernmost areas of Pannonia. The move may also be a way of removing themselves from Heruli dominance, and comes at an ideal time, as the Ostrogoths are themselves migrating into Italy for create a kingdom of their own. The Langobards clearly take note of this last event.

if you take history in a summarised form, then do not blame me.

http://thule-italia.org/Nordica/Paul the Deacon - History of the Lombards (1907) [EN].pdf?lbisphpreq=1

Colanda is generally considered, however, to be Gothland,
and as the Langobards were found in Pannonia in the year 166 at the time of the war with Marcus
Aurelius, and as the Goths emigrated to the Euxine probably about the middle of the second century,
Hodgkin (V, 101) considers it probable that the Langobards at this time were hovering about the skirts of
the Carpathians rather than that they had returned to Bardengau. The fact that when they were next heard
from, they were occupying Rugiland east of Noricum, on the north shore of the Danube, confirms this
view.

Everyone must substantiate their claims. Especially if a moderator asked it of you. You either comply, or you will face the appropriate consequences. In order to maintain the integrity of this forum, we need to be vigilant in preventing the spread of disinformation. You were also rude and disrespectful.
 
Last edited:
Promenade, that R1b1b caught me a bit off-guard too. Unless it's just a nomenclature difference and they actually mean some expected subclade of R1b1a.

It could well be some kind of classification quirk, but I will save any kind of analysis or speculation for when the actual paper arrives and there's a proper thread. I just wanted to share because Angela inquired about when we might finally get some Classical era dna and it turns out they're already working with some samples and planning on getting more from other Poleis.

Btw if anyone's interested a Rakhigarhi paper was released, but it's completely about burials and absent of any genetic discussion.
 
Don't these results suggest that, indeed, they were more of a tribal confederation which possibly adopted the name of the dominant ethnicity (Lombards) but also included and accepted other peoples even if in a different social status/role? I doubt all those "southern" individuals were just servants in a highly militarized, mobile and warlike society in the midst of a long-distance and violent migration, where they would need many alliances to conquer very populated, even if decadent, regions.

I think that it is at least realistic that those southern individuals were more lowly members of the Lombard tribal confederative system originally belonging to independent tribes but still maintaining, at least initially, their distinctive ethnic identity (maybe Pannonians or even Balkanic tribes like "free" Dacians and newcomers like Bulgars), like many others before and afterwards (think of Avars, Bulgars, most Turkic and Mongol confederatioins)

I think we can see something like that at Collegno, where there is one kindred with different genetics. However, the "southern" ones were usually just buried in a pit, with absolutely no grave goods at all in both SZ and CL. The section starts on page 132 of the Supplementary text, and the charts start on page 143.
 
I think we can see something like that at Collegno, where there is one kindred with different genetics. However, the "southern" ones were usually just buried in a pit, with absolutely no grave goods at all in both SZ and CL. The section starts on page 132 of the Supplementary text, and the charts start on page 143.
Hmm, I see. Yeah, it's difficult to believe that allied tribes would put up with being treated that lowly way for a long time if they didn't actually have to (because they werent free, because they needed or couldn't escape the "protection" of their overlords or something like that).
 
I’ve seen commentary about CL94. It’s difficult to draw broad conclusions as his grave was disturbed, and we don’t know to what period he belonged or what grave goods were buried with him. Ethnically he is closest to Iberian according to both algorithms. We also know that the sample was a male and that he was local.

There are problems with certain other samples too.
“In these analyses, we did not consider individuals CL57 and CL94 because their graves presented signals of disturbance and there are reasons to believe the grave goods found in their tombs during excavation of the site are not representative of the actual grave furnishing at the moment of the burial of these individuals. Sample CL36 was excluded because it does not belong to the first period of occupation of Collegno as the remaining samples and sample CL31 was excluded due high contamination (~27%). “

Another group buried at Collegno could, in my opinion, derive not from the same source as the First Kindred, but from more western or “French” areas.


Kindred CL2 is located in the eastern part of Collegno. Genetic evidence supports the relationship between CL47, CL49, CL53, and CL57 (Fig 3). The position of grave CL48 between CL47 and CL49, in a single row, suggests these individuals could potentially be related (biologically, due to first-second degree relationship, or socially, for instance, as members of the same household) to the female buried in graved CL48. In fact, as noted in Supplementary Text S3, this grave contains artifacts not common to the region, with likely transalpine origins, similarly to CL47. Moreover, the fact CL48 and CL47 both present a form of hereditary scaphocephaly further strengthens the possibility of this relationship being also biological. Members of this kindred did not reach the threshold T for being considered N or S in the previous analyses, but we consider it is worth mentioning their graves contain artifacts that seem to be, at least in part, from a different tradition in comparison to other graves in Collegno (Supplementary Text S3), such as jewelry and accessories seen in the transalpine area. We also see that members of this kin group are the only ones seen with golden crosses in this early stage of occupation of Collegno. In resemblance to graves with N individuals, graves CL47, CL48 an CL49 have wooden chambers, and adult males CL49 and CL53 were buried with weapons.”

So, this is an in between group: neither N or S.

L47-female buried in wooden chambers with transalpine artifacts, hereditary scaphocephaly, daughter of CL49, mother with more “Eastern European” ancestry, mtDna H11a

CL48 adult female buried in wooded chambers, artifacts are transalpine, rich burial hereditary scaphocephaly, not local

CL49 adult male buried in wooden chambers with weapons, not local, 50-70% N, looks Swiss on PCA, wife perhaps Austrian like, R1b1a1a2a1a2b1a

CL53 adult male buried with weapons, Austrian (Popres) or French, local, son of CL 49, mother with more Eastern European ancestry, mtDna H11a, R1b1a2a*

CL57 male, Tuscan like, mtDna H24a,R1b1s2a1a

CL 23 and CL94 are not local and are more than 50% Iberian plus other “southern”.
*There has to be a typo somewhere if CL53 is the son of CL49.
 
Last edited:
Thank you for introducing just how much of a gap has been left unexplored or with minimal focus. It's more exciting to add to to my curiosity when so much needs to be uncovered. Searching for answers highlights events of the moment. The information that exist adds to the overall understanding of the subject matter.
 
sz36
2.) Y Chromosome
T-M184 > M70 > L162 > L208 > CTS11451 > FGC3995/Y4119 > CTS2214 > Y15127
Known phylo equivalent SNPs:
Y15127 T+

http://genomes.yseq.net/WGS/SRR6703597/
I have seen similar SNP in Germany and Wales
 
Learning to listen


The challenge to think outside the box is a good reason to thank those willing to share the historics as well as the genetics. I have to wonder where can i take my own skills furter enough to add to the decisions already shared. The fact is I'm determined to keep trying.
Demographic Events and Evolutionary Forces Shaping European Genetic Diversity
Abstract
Europeans have been the focus of some of the largest studies of genetic diversity in any species todate. Recent genome-wide data have reinforced the hypothesis that present-day European genetic diversity is strongly correlated with geography. The remaining challenge now is to understand more precisely how patterns of diversity in Europe reflect ancient demographic events such as postglacial expansions or the spread of farming. It is likely that recent advances in paleo genetics will give us some of these answers. There has also been progress in identifying specific segments of European genomes that reflect adaptations to selective pressures from the physical environment, disease, and dietary shifts. A growing understanding of how modern European genetic diversity has been shaped by demographic and evolutionary forces is not only of basic historical and anthropological interest but also aids genetic studies of disease.
 
In post #2, CL 63 is shown I1a3 but has a terminal SNP of Z79, which is under I2. Can somebody check on that independently? I'm on mobile right now.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Eupedia Forum mobile app
 
In post #2, CL 63 is shown I1a3 but has a terminal SNP of Z79, which is under I2. Can somebody check on that independently? I'm on mobile right now.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Eupedia Forum mobile app
Additionally, the larger branch just above Z79 has a very northern distribution. Germanic/Nordic . Z79 itself also found in Britain.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Eupedia Forum mobile app
 
If the I1a3 is really I2 as I have pointed out, we are left with a single I1 sample. That is very odd because of the northern branches of R1b present. The Z79 I2 branch is also very northern. Perhaps just random sample effect?
 
New paper on Longobards

A new paper was released today on Longobards, it has interesting information regarding the ancient Longobards in northern Italy. It's interesting to confirm that the most common HG were I2a and R1b. I can´t post the link, the paper was published by Nature today, September 11th
 
A new paper was released today on Longobards, it has interesting information regarding the ancient Longobards in northern Italy. It's interesting to confirm that the most common HG were I2a and R1b. I can´t post the link, the paper was published by Nature today, September 11th

what subclade of I2a and R1b ?
 
One sample among the Collegno ones has up to 20-25% East Asian admixture specifically Chinese/Korean related and not towards Tatars or Scythians which to me suggest that there have been already a cultural connection between the Roman Empire and some Far Eastern provinces like China, Manchuria. If someone is 1/4 East Asian amongs the samples we have to ask how did an Asian end up living in Collegno and intermixed with the locals? Was he the descendant of one Chinese explorer or a Hunnic elite remnant with high Manchurian admixture?
 

This thread has been viewed 100131 times.

Back
Top