# Population Genetics > Y-DNA Haplogroups >  Lombard DNA in Italy

## Dorianfinder

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




> ... if you look at the distribution in France and the British Isles versus the Iberian penninsula. *Why is there more U152 in Britain than in Iberia? How is this possible if it's from the Romans?*



Lombard lands c.750-785

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

The Lombards migrated along the following proposed route into Italy. 


> There is hardly any u-152 in scania and northern Germany. Besides how long did they take to migrate


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

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

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

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



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

----------


## Sile

There is hardly any u-152 in scania and northern Germany. Besides how long did they take to migrate

----------


## Dorianfinder

> There is hardly any u-152 in scania and northern Germany. Besides how long did they take to migrate


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

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

----------


## Sile

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

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

----------


## Dorianfinder

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


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

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

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

----------


## Taranis

> Etruscan DNA was mostly J2, before the Lombards northern Italy would have had a similar South Italy admixture so J2, R1b-L23-, E-V13, G and I2 with more R1b-L23+ and I2. 
> 
> The R1b-L23+ in Lombardy would not have been so heavy in R1b-U152 for several reasons. Firstly, the Gallic invasions of 390BC in addition to the Boii who made Bononia their capital, were routed out according to later Roman onslaughts.


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

----------


## Etrusco-romano

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

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


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

----------


## Dorianfinder

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

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

----------


## Etrusco-romano

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


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

----------


## Etrusco-romano

> The legend of the formation of Rome states that there were three groups to begin with:
> 1. Etruscans [definitely not a R1b-U152 people]
> 2. Latini [definitely not a R1b-U152 people]
> 3. Sabines [origins also show East Med. origins]
> 
> Some claim that the local Italian tribes took control of the Roman Empire, as improbable as it sounds, it still does not account for the levels of R1b-U152.


Agree with the Etruscan, but who say to you:

1) The Latins where not U152

2) The Sabines come from East

----------


## Taranis

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


J1 is not exclusively Semitic, neither is it the original "Semitic" marker. As discussed in this thread, only the subclade J1c3d is actually associated with the Semitic peoples. The other subclades of J1 are quite common in the Levante, Anatolia and Caucasus.

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

----------


## Dorianfinder

> The Lombards who came to Italy were a small elite, perhaps a population of 110,000, compared with a italian population who which ranged between 8 and 9 million habitants


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

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

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

----------


## Dorianfinder

> Agree with the Etruscan, but who say to you:
> 
> 1) The Latins where not U152
> 
> 2) The Sabines come from East


The most likely route for the Italic migration (i.e. Latins) into Italy was from the Balkan peninsula along the Adriatic coast.[1][2]

1. Britannica _Latium_
2. Cornell (1995) 44

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

----------


## Etrusco-romano

> Demographics of Italy:
> 1460 - 4 500 000
> 1675 - 12 500 000
> 1861 - 22 200 000
> 1901 - 33 000 000
> 1961 - 50 000 000
> 2010 - 60 500 000
> 
> Where do you get a population of 8 million in 6th century Italy?
> ...



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

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

----------


## Etrusco-romano

> The most likely route for the Italic migration (i.e. Latins) into Italy was from the Balkan peninsula along the Adriatic coast.[1][2]
> 
> 1. Britannica _Latium_
> 2. Cornell (1995) 44
> 
> The archaeological evidence shows a remarkable uniformity of culture in the peninsula during the period 1800-1200 BC - the so-called 'Appenine culture'. Pottery with much the same incised geometric designs is found throughout Italy, and the design of weapons and tools was also homogenous. During this period, it appears that Italy was a heavily wooded land with a sparse population.


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

----------


## Dorianfinder

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


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

Ancient mt-DNA studies have been confirmed by studies comparing Tuscan men to DNA sequences with those from men in modern Turkey, northern Italy, the Greek island of Lemnos, the Italian islands of Sicily and Sardinia and the southern Balkans. They found that the genetic sequences of the Tuscan men varied significantly from those of men in surrounding regions in Italy, and that the men from Murlo and Volterra were the most closely related to men from Turkey. In Murlo in particular, one genetic variant is shared only by people from Turkey. The island of Lemnos and the Turkish man from Smyrna are in J1 desert.

----------


## Etrusco-romano

> J2 as pre-Etruscan, I would say that pre-Etruscan is supposed to be ancestral Etruscan so we agree here. Concerning J1 I am not sure if it was a majority in any Italian population really and think the J1 distribution maps shades of green are misleading as the scale is small.
> 
> Ancient mt-DNA studies have been confirmed by studies comparing Tuscan men to DNA sequences with those from men in modern Turkey, northern Italy, the Greek island of Lemnos, the Italian islands of Sicily and Sardinia and the southern Balkans. They found that the genetic sequences of the Tuscan men varied significantly from those of men in surrounding regions in Italy, and that the men from Murlo and Volterra were the most closely related to men from Turkey. In Murlo in particular, one genetic variant is shared only by people from Turkey. The island of Lemnos and the Turkish man from Smyrna are in J1 desert.


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

----------


## Dorianfinder

> the Italian population during the Middle Ages was reduced because of famine and disease (Black Death), the 1400 whose the first time in population growth after the fall occurred after the eighth century AD. And I do not understand where you may have read that Italy had 600,000 inhabitants in the fifth century AD, if you said 2 or 3 million would have been strange but questionable, but 600,000is absurd.
> 
> The research _La composition ethnique de la population italienne_ (Bulletins et Memoires de la Societe d'Anthropologie de Paris, Mario Cappieri) and the classical scholar Karl Julius Belock demographics are not of this opinion, to attest to the population between 5 and 9 variables million from the fourth century to the sixth century AD


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

----------


## Dorianfinder

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


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

----------


## Etrusco-romano

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


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

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

----------


## Dorianfinder

Where did the 40-50% R1b-U152 distributed throughout Lombardy come from? 

@ Leonardo

Who were the ancient Italics who carried R1b-U152?

----------


## Etrusco-romano

> Where did the 40-50% R1b-U152 distributed throughout Lombardy come from? 
> 
> @ Leonardo
> 
> Who were the ancient Italics who carried R1b-U152?


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

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

----------


## Dorianfinder

> The Italics were one family who spoke different dialects, and there were not big differences between them, so it is conceivable that all more or less, were carriers off U152.
> 
> The spread of U152 in Lombardy is almost certainly to be charged as a percentage (roughly) to 30% in the presence of the Gauls, and the huge amount to 70% of settlers sent from Rome to Lombardy.


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

----------


## Etrusco-romano

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


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

----------


## Taranis

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


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

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

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

To get back to the original thread topic:

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

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

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

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

----------


## Angela

Indeed, that's early Neolithic; by the mid-Neolithic in Central Europe the levels had gone down. I wonder where the Lombards picked it up?

The other interesting thing is the extremely low levels of mtDna "U" (WGH/EHG U5 and U4 clades): 3 mtDna U4, and one U*.

----------


## moore2moore

*Where to begin?

1. @Dorianfinder: Your premise is faulty. I doubt we will ever know what is "Lombard DNA." 

For this fool's errand itself, I blame the charlatans during the early days of DNA who tried to sell people on the notion that one haplogroup or another is a "Viking" (or whatever) marker. 

That can only occur in relatively isolated places where you can show beyond a doubt that the haplogroup in question did not exist before, or when aDNA shows it, or when you are talking about a subclade with extraordinary specificity. None of these apply here.

ALL people by the dawn of recorded history were already significantly admixed. In fact, to assume otherwise is in direct conflict with many of the majoritarian theories here. By c. 5500 BC, Europe was already a melting pot of different Hgs. Certainly by 1000 BC. See http://snplogic.blogspot.com/2015/04...cient-dna.html

In other words, it is false to assume that because our knowledge of a people's name and movements (i.e., recorded history) begins at a certain moment (i.e., during Greco-Roman times for most of Western Europe), that the people who stepped on the stage at that time (e.g., the Lombards) were atoms (pure essences). Europeans were all molecules (carrying many different strains) by this time. There is no one Lombard signature.

2. @Taranis. The same applies for Etruscan. There is no way to say it was predominantly one Hg or another. They were a mosaic. On Etruscans generally, see http://snplogic.blogspot.com/2014/02...logic-not.html

3. @Zanipolo. Define "aboriginal." In an area that is as well-traversed as Europe and Italy, do you mean the Neandertals? Archaic Modern Humans? Cro-Magnons? I'm a bit of an expert on pre-Roman Italic tribes, so I can tell you anything you might want to know about the conjecture on who was there first, in what region. It is mostly conjecture, with a smidge of archaeology, linguistics, and as of yet, no real DNA proof.

4. @Vallicanus and others. While I dug the foray into prosopography, the study of names and surnames, a large part of prosopography, is helpful in Italy only before c. 1200 AD. Anything much later, and indeed, the modern distribution means nothing. Surnames, too, mean little, since they affixed in most of Italy only during the Counter-Reformation. 

Names were widespread and adopted by non-native speakers. In other words, after 1200 AD or even 1000 AD, you will find Roman Italians with names like "Gandolfini" (originally Norman), Rolando (originally Germanic), and the descendants of Germanics with names like Giulio, Sergio, Antonio, Valerio, etc., which are traditional Roman names. Tread carefully with how much you read into names. Angela said this much more eloquently than I could, a different way, on page 7 of this thread.

I would further note that "Lombard" took on an entirely different meaning in Italy after a couple hundred years had passed. It changed from an ethnonym to a profession: someone trading in jewelry. In the Byzantine provinces, it was slang for any non-Byzantine-ruled Italian, similar to how the word "Frank" changed from an ethnonym to mean, "any European," during the crusades.

5. @Corinth. Your theory on the origin of the Goths in certainly interesting, but I would note that it goes against almost all of the linguistic evidence, and all the ancient sources. The Goths spoke an East Germanic language, and there is a historical Gotland in South Sweden that bears material affinities with the wandering Goths' culture.

6. @mihaitzateo. AMEN. Your comments on the problems and northcentrism that gets in the way of explaining Indo-European markers in Southern Europe (aka, 1/2 of IE lands) are well-taken, and explained in detail here. http://dlc.hypotheses.org/807

7. @Skaheen15. The R1b theory, which has only been fleshed out in the last 1-3 years, is anything but well-accepted, and as for Italy, the recent Remedello finds complicate the simplistic nature of this theory considerably. There are current discussions on this on the haplogroups board.

8. @Angela. I dispute the extent of the Greek impact in Southern Italy. I believe, as you've posted elsewhere, the extant clines existed before the Bronze Age. Modern makers of online maps often show Magna Grecia as extending inland, for convenience sakes, but the truth of the matter is that Magna Grecia consisted of only coastal cities, always on the ocean. Sadly, many of these cities were completely depopulated and destroyed by Lucani, Bruti, and Romans. The experience of the Greeks in Thurii was typical. Harassed by Italic tribes, it became one of the few Greek cities that DIDN'T fall to the Italic tribes c. 300 BC, but after siding with Carthage, was utterly destroyed, so much so that the Romans had to relocate 3000 Latins there. Despite the Roman settlement, most of these cities were abandoned by the common era. (This is slightly off-topic).





*

----------


## Angela

@Moore,

I don't know how much of the ancestry of Italians comes from actual Greek settlement in the first millennium BC versus common ancestry with Greeks from the early Neolithic, the mid-Neolithic, the late Neolithic, or the early Bronze Age, and neither do you or anyone else, as we have absolutely no dna results upon which to ground our speculations.

----------


## moore2moore

Exactamundo!

I've made this point repeatedly: the "Greek-LIKE" appearance in certain parts of S. Italy could be the result of gene flow in 4000 BC (pre-ethnic), 400 BC (Ancient Greek colonies), or 400 AD (some rehellenization during Byzantine times).

I caution folks from assuming 400 BC, simply because we have better records for that period.

----------


## Cla168

I just wanted to point out that I'm full Italian, born and living in Italy, my family from both sides has always been here. My father's line is from a village called Moscufo, the one I live in. Before doing the DNA test I read a book on the history of this village and found out that it was founded by the Lombards during the Lombard Kingdom of Italy and was originally called Meuskulf. As far as anyone knows in my family, we've always been here, especially my father's line who apparently never moved out of Moscufo. On the test, my Y-DNA turned out to be R-U106, very uncommon in Italy (4% of the population) thus proving that the Lombards carried this haplogroup.

----------


## Brennos

> I just wanted to point out that I'm full Italian, born and living in Italy, my family from both sides has always been here. My father's line is from a village called Moscufo, the one I live in. Before doing the DNA test I read a book on the history of this village and found out that it was founded by the Lombards during the Lombard Kingdom of Italy and was originally called Meuskulf. As far as anyone knows in my family, we've always been here, especially my father's line who apparently never moved out of Moscufo. On the test, my Y-DNA turned out to be R-U106, very uncommon in Italy (4% of the population) thus proving that the Lombards carried this haplogroup.


 A genealogical research with documents could be useful to know more about your family.

----------


## Pax Augusta

> I just wanted to point out that I'm full Italian, born and living in Italy, my family from both sides has always been here. My father's line is from a village called Moscufo, the one I live in. Before doing the DNA test I read a book on the history of this village and found out that it was founded by the Lombards during the Lombard Kingdom of Italy and was originally called Meuskulf. As far as anyone knows in my family, we've always been here, especially my father's line who apparently never moved out of Moscufo. On the test, my Y-DNA turned out to be R-U106, very uncommon in Italy (4% of the population) thus proving that the Lombards carried this haplogroup.


4% of the population isn't something that can be defined as uncommon.

----------


## Vukodav

^ Well German themselves are only 19% U106.

----------


## Cla168

> A genealogical research with documents could be useful to know more about your family.


Unfortunately it's rather hard. On my father's side, they were all peasants. I want to look for censuses and records somewhere, but that wouldn't give me any info on my Lombard origin.




> 4% of the population isn't something that can be defined as uncommon.


Well, I didn't say it's rare, but I don't think it's common either. It's probably only surviving in former Lombard duchies and places settled by the Normans, who also carried this haplogroup for a small part.




> ^ Well German themselves are only 19% U106.


If 4% isn't uncommon, 19% must be really common, right? Also, it's not properly from Germany, but more from Frisia. U106 has its peek in the Netherlands, with 44% of the people carrying it. I think this also proves that they came from Scandinavia as Diaconus says, and that for a short period of time they followed the Saxons in their migration towards the west, but then turned South-East all the way to Pannonia and then Italy.

----------


## Angela

> Unfortunately it's rather hard. On my father's side, they were all peasants. I want to look for censuses and records somewhere, but that wouldn't give me any info on my Lombard origin.
> 
> 
> Well, I didn't say it's rare, but I don't think it's common either. It's probably only surviving in former Lombard duchies and places settled by the Normans, who also carried this haplogroup for a small part.
> 
> 
> If 4% isn't uncommon, 19% must be really common, right? Also, it's not properly from Germany, but more from Frisia. U106 has its peek in the Netherlands, with 44% of the people carrying it. I think this also proves that they came from Scandinavia as Diaconus says, and that for a short period of time they followed the Saxons in their migration towards the west, but then turned South-East all the way to Pannonia and then Italy.



What census records? It's all parish records once you get beyond very recent times as Italian history goes. Social status is irrelevant as far as these records are concerned, since *everyone* was recorded at least back to the time of the Council of Trent. If the records still exist, which they often do because even in the case of the havoc caused by wars the records were deposited in multiple places, you can trace most of your family lines back to that period without terrible difficulty, although you may have to go to lots of parishes, and pore through lots of musty old books and spend a lot of time doing it. How else did Cavalli Sforza get family trees going back to the mid-1500s for very man, woman and child living in the Parma Valley when he did his monumental study on genetics? 

There are some families which claim to be able to trace descent on a few lines back further to perhaps 1100 or so. Indeed, I have a few of those myself, but the records are spotty, usually having to do with a few notarial records, and given the statistical data for NPEs I think it's all highly questionable that any names someone finds are indeed actual ancestors. If there are multiple ydna lines for royal families, why would anyone put any faith in some of these online trees? The claims of some noble Italian families of being able to trace their descent back to Roman senators is just silly, in my opinion. As for the Lombards they were illiterate so no records can possibly exist for individual family lines to these people.

----------


## Sile

> Unfortunately it's rather hard. On my father's side, they were all peasants. I want to look for censuses and records somewhere, but that wouldn't give me any info on my Lombard origin.
> 
> 
> Well, I didn't say it's rare, but I don't think it's common either. It's probably only surviving in former Lombard duchies and places settled by the Normans, who also carried this haplogroup for a small part.
> 
> 
> If 4% isn't uncommon, 19% must be really common, right? Also, it's not properly from Germany, but more from Frisia. U106 has its peek in the Netherlands, with 44% of the people carrying it. I think this also proves that they came from Scandinavia as Diaconus says, and that for a short period of time they followed the Saxons in their migration towards the west, but then turned South-East all the way to Pannonia and then Italy.


A summary of registry rules in Italy

- All registry records prior to 1804 where done initially in the parish of the town

- from 1805 to today all marriages must be done in the civil registry *before* a church wedding ............which is why you get 2 different dates for marriages. 
- Unless a civil marriage is reformed then that marriage does not exist for the Italian government.
- All women will retain their maiden names and not get the husband surnames..........this was reinforced in the 1970's with even stricter rules.

so, ask you local civil registry office and they will supply you all records until about 1805 ..........then ask the civil registry which parish holds the records for your family before this and they will advise you........................I recently got all my records in this method 4 months ago ...........and they where quick, inside of a week, scanned to me and later officially mailed in the post.

----------


## Cla168

> What census records? It's all parish records once you get beyond very recent times as Italian history goes.


Indeed, I was taking about the 18th century or something, I don't expect to get records from the Council of Trent times either, since they're really really old. But even if I did, it would be impossible to link these findings to a Lombard ancestry, since as you said they were illiterate.




> so, ask you local civil registry office and they will supply you all records until about 1805 ..........then ask the civil registry which parish holds the records for your family before this and they will advise you........................I recently got all my records in this method 4 months ago ...........and they where quick, inside of a week, scanned to me and later officially mailed in the post.


So you think I should go to my village's town hall to look for my family's 1805-today records?

----------


## Sile

> So you think I should go to my village's town hall to look for my family's 1805-today records?


go to the comune and they should supply you with your family records , for free..............thats what I did. 

while you are there they can guide you to which parish is most likely your family have the pre 1805 records...............but wait until you get your civil records* first* as your family maybe was not present where you are now since 1805, maybe they arrived from elsewhere

----------


## Cla168

> go to the comune and they should supply you with your family records , for free..............thats what I did. 
> 
> while you are there they can guide you to which parish is most likely your family have the pre 1805 records...............but wait until you get your civil records* first* as your family maybe was not present where you are now since 1805, maybe they arrived from elsewhere


Awesome, thank you. I will do that tomorrow. But yeah, as I said, I'm pretty confident my father's family have always been here. We'll see.

----------


## Brennos

> What census records? It's all parish records once you get beyond very recent times as Italian history goes. Social status is irrelevant as far as these records are concerned, since *everyone* was recorded at least back to the time of the Council of Trent. If the records still exist, which they often do because even in the case of the havoc caused by wars the records were deposited in multiple places, you can trace most of your family lines back to that period without terrible difficulty, although you may have to go to lots of parishes, and pore through lots of musty old books and spend a lot of time doing it. How else did Cavalli Sforza get family trees going back to the mid-1500s for very man, woman and child living in the Parma Valley when he did his monumental study on genetics? There are some families which claim to be able to trace descent on a few lines back further to perhaps 1100 or so. Indeed, I have a few of those myself, but the records are spotty, usually having to do with a few notarial records, and given the statistical data for NPEs I think it's all highly questionable that any names someone finds are indeed actual ancestors. If there are multiple ydna lines for royal families, why would anyone put any faith in some of these online trees? The claims of some noble Italian families of being able to trace their descent back to Roman senators is just silly, in my opinion. As for the Lombards they were illiterate so no records can possibly exist for individual family lines to these people.


 I'm a genealogist and I can say "No, it is nearly impossible to reach the 1100 A.D. for commoners". Only some noble families, and not so clearly, can reach the 1100, but most of them have some holes in their patrilineal lineage. When I was in Italy for school and university, I did research on a family of local adventurers, not noble but very active in politics: I was able to reach 1249, but with a very very hard work (i.e. more than 10 years of research).

----------


## felipeschmidt25

What about r1a? Do you think that some lombards could carried r1a YDNA(a bit) or it in italy is more gothic related?

----------


## howyesno

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


R1b u152 Z36 looks as signature of Lombards. It would be interesting to know where else in Euroasia is Z36 strong

----------


## Pax Augusta

> R1b u152 Z36 looks as signature of Lombards. It would be interesting to know where else in Euroasia is Z36 strong



Nope, R1b U152 Z36 is more likely Scamozzina/Canegrate and Golasecca cultures.

----------


## Angela

> Nope, R1b U152 Z36 is more likely Scamozzina/Canegrate and Golasecca cultures.


 That's possible. I certainly can't see it as Lombard with that huge hole in the northeast where the Lombard influence would be particularly strong.

----------


## felipeschmidt25

Where you catch this map? It is very interessing

----------


## asquecco

I think my R-U152 S8183 from Carnia (Italy) could be a good candidate to be related to Lombards. I thought it could be from the Celtic tribe Carni but the S8183 current distribution is too nordic to be Celtic. Let's wait for new data and see.

----------


## Stolfi1

I have been trying to find out information on my Italian (Lombard?) dna and it brought me to this forum. My paternal Italian ancestor's were from Avigliano in Potenza with the surname of Stolfi - which is derived from Aistulf. My haplogroup per 23andme is I-L205.1 (which I believe might relate to the Lombards). I've always wondered about my Italian surname that sounded very German and I think due to my haplogroup and what I am learning about the Lombard's in Italy, I think I am beginning to figure it all out. I'm wondering now if having my brother take a Y-DNA FTDNA test would shed any more light. Any thoughts on what information might be gained by having him take a Y-DNA test and if it might confirm if our DNA is Lombard DNA?

----------


## Regio X

> I have been trying to find out information on my Italian (Lombard?) dna and it brought me to this forum. My paternal Italian ancestor's were from Avigliano in Potenza with the surname of Stolfi - which is derived from Aistulf. My haplogroup per 23andme is I-L205.1 (which I believe might relate to the Lombards). I've always wondered about my Italian surname that sounded very German and I think due to my haplogroup and what I am learning about the Lombard's in Italy, I think I am beginning to figure it all out. I'm wondering now if having my brother take a Y-DNA FTDNA test would shed any more light. Any thoughts on what information might be gained by having him take a Y-DNA test and if it might confirm if our DNA is Lombard DNA?


It looks Lombard, indeed.

This is the phylogenetic tree created by Maciamo time ago (you can find I-L205.1 two steps below I-L22):


Notice that the time to most recent common ancestor of I-L205.1 men living today is just 1600 years before present, i.e., ~400 AD:
https://www.yfull.com/tree/I-L205/
There are British (brought by Anglo-Saxons to UK?) and Norwegian men in YFull, but I assume you would get more info in I1 Project at FTDNA regarding its current distribution. So, it's intuitive to think that this haplogroup arrived "from" North "to" South Italy after 400 AD, which doesn't conflict with the arrival of Lombards in South Italy. On the contrary. So you must be right.

I-L205.1 has only two subclades so far, and I'd guess 23andMe v5 doesn't test them (just checking the Raw Data to be sure). 
BigY700 helps on the building of the phylogenetic tree. It could place you in some of the existant I-L205.1 branches, but it would be also possible that you belong to a brand new one (and matches could show up in the future, as more men test, either from Italy itself but also from other parts of Europe, perhaps). Keep in mind that the branching after the arrival of Lombards to Italy must be virtually exclusive to... Italy, naturally. We're talking on a little window of time to find haplogroups below I-L205.1 shared between Italians and Central/Northern Europeans.
Particularly, I'm not sure a very deep test could shed much more light. We already know it was carried by Lombards likely; we know the Lombards arrived in Italy a bit before 600 AD, and the influx of Lombards did not last for long, I'd guess, despite the centuries of dominance.
So, it depends on your goal, imo. I would not test BigY if it's just to confirm that the Y-DNA is Lombard, because it seems virtually confirmed already imo. Now, if you're really curious about possibly belonging to some existant branch, you could either risk single SNP tests of A1465 (firstly) and A10200 - but take in mind that A10200 has 4 equivalents - at YSEQ or, yes, perform a BigY700, if money is not a problem for you. je je Still assuming 23andMe v5 doesn't test any further. If it tested and you're negative for them, we'd know you belong to a new one just below I-L205.1, perhaps shared with other Europeans, but just time would tell.

----------


## Stolfi1

Thank you so much! Great information! I think I will do a Y-test with FTDNA and I believe I can always pay more for additional testing if it's needed or wanted at some point. I uploaded the raw data to gedmatch and am just trying to figure out now how to convert my raw data from 23andme to a csv file so I can upload it to a few FTDNA groups, at least until I get a better kit to test with. I'm exciting at the thought that my ancestry can go back to the Lombards, so would love to confirm it with as much accuracy as I possibly can.

----------


## Regio X

> Thank you so much! Great information! I think I will do a Y-test with FTDNA and I believe I can always pay more for additional testing if it's needed or wanted at some point. I uploaded the raw data to gedmatch and am just trying to figure out now how to convert my raw data from 23andme to a csv file so I can upload it to a few FTDNA groups, at least until I get a better kit to test with. I'm exciting at the thought that my ancestry can go back to the Lombards, so would love to confirm it with as much accuracy as I possibly can.


Do you mean BigY700? After this one, no need of testing further. You could just share your BAM file with YFull and that's it.

Btw, you can't use 23andMe data in FTDNA Projects. 23andMe doesn't test STRs.
But you can sign up and join, afaik.

Here is yours:
https://www.familytreedna.com/public/I1dL205

The Y Chart:
https://www.familytreedna.com/public...frame=yresults

----------


## torzio

> It looks Lombard, indeed.
> 
> This is the phylogenetic tree created by Maciamo time ago (you can find I-L205.1 two steps below I-L22):
> 
> 
> Notice that the time to most recent common ancestor of I-L205.1 men living today is just 1600 years before present, i.e., ~400 AD:
> https://www.yfull.com/tree/I-L205/
> There are British (brought by Anglo-Saxons to UK?) and Norwegian men in YFull, but I assume you would get more info in I1 Project at FTDNA regarding its current distribution. So, it's intuitive to think that this haplogroup arrived "from" North "to" South Italy after 400 AD, which doesn't conflict with the arrival of Lombards in South Italy. On the contrary. So you must be right.
> 
> ...


interesting

my paternal line via my gradmother is I1d1-P109

----------


## Stolfi1

Thanks Regio X for letting me know that you can't upload raw files from 23andme to the FTDNA groups. You just saved me a lot of aggravation!

----------


## Regio X

I-L205 structure according to FTDNA; a bit different from YFull, and more "developed":
Attachment 11189

----------


## Stolfi1

[QUOTE=Regio X;581652]I-L205 structure according to FTDNA; a bit different from YFull, and more "developed":
/QUOTE]

Your link to the attachment doesn't work. At least for me it doesn't work. I can't open it.

----------


## Regio X

> Thanks Regio X for letting me know that you can't upload raw files from 23andme to the FTDNA groups. You just saved me a lot of aggravation!


Dude, so sorry, I just realized that L205 has several equivalents at YFull, so the TMRCA could change. FTDNA puts these SNPs below I-L205, as equivalents of A1463, so it seems I-L205 per se is pretty older.
Then I guess a BigY could help to clarify it, yes.

----------


## Regio X

> Your link to the attachment doesn't work. At least for me it doesn't work. I can't open it.


Strange. Here it opens.

@torzio
Nice. I'm also testing a maternal uncle. Hope the results are ready in few weeks. I'll post them here.
MDKA in male line also from Treviso province, btw.

----------


## Stolfi1

> Dude, so sorry, I just realized that L205 has several equivalents at YFull, so the TMRCA could change. FTDNA puts these SNPs below I-L205, as equivalents of A1463, so it seems I-L205 per se is pretty older.
> Then I guess a BigY could help to clarify it, yes.


I'm not used to be called, Dude! :) But I am definitely going to get the Y700 kit to test further. This is all too interesting - I have to test further!

----------


## Regio X

> @torzio
> Nice. I'm also testing a maternal uncle. Hope the results are ready in few weeks. I'll post them here.
> MDKA in male line also from Treviso province, btw.


Y12 ready: R-M269. Based on relatively few matches and also on his origin, R-U152 and R-U106 seem more likely. We"ll see.

----------


## Duarte

> Y12 ready: R-M269. Based on relatively few matches and also on his origin, R-U152 and R-U106 seem more likely. We"ll see.


Dear friend @Regio X.
Today the results of my latest DNA test was available: "MyHeritage Health + Ancestry" (according to the company's new algorithm, I'm much more Italian than I supposed but, on the other hand, I'm much more Iberian too, LOL). As I had predicted before, much more Y SNPs were tested than in the first test I had done at the same company.
As can be seen below, from the spreadsheet with the new raw data provided by the company, I found that my deepest Y-DNA is R1b-S47. I am homozygous "T" for R1b-S47.
Now is to wait for the FTDNA's "Big Y-700" and "mtDNA Full Sequecence" results to definitely confirm my Y-DNA haplogroup and my mtDNA haplogroup.
Thank you for all the attention and guidance that you have provided me. His knowledge of the subject and his advice were crucial for me to decide on the tests.  :Good Job:  :Smile:

----------


## italouruguayan

My paternal grandfather was born in Veneto and the family is of far Lombard origin (Bergamo). Being my Y-DNA R1b U106 L44 L163-, I guess the most likely origin is Longobard, for a matter of probability. Does anyone know if there is currently any way to differentiate it from other Germanic peoples?

----------


## Regio X

> Dear friend @Regio X.
> Today the results of my latest DNA test was available: "MyHeritage Health + Ancestry" (according to the company's new algorithm, I'm much more Italian than I supposed but, on the other hand, I'm much more Iberian too, LOL). As I had predicted before, much more Y SNPs were tested than in the first test I had done at the same company.
> As can be seen below, from the spreadsheet with the new raw data provided by the company, I found that my deepest Y-DNA is R1b-S47. I am homozygous "T" for R1b-S47.
> Now is to wait for the FTDNA's "Big Y-700" and "mtDNA Full Sequecence" results to definitely confirm my Y-DNA haplogroup and my mtDNA haplogroup.
> Thank you for all the attention and guidance that you have provided me. His knowledge of the subject and his advice were crucial for me to decide on the tests.


@Fellow Duarte
How cool! A Roman soldier - my "cousin" G-L42 - as the closest ancient match and now a supposed "Italic" Y-DNA (according to Maciamo): R-Z56. You're basically a Roman living fossil. Lol https://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplo...1b_Y-DNA.shtml
Yeah, I know it's not that simple. :) So, kidding apart, I'm glad you figured out your main clade in anticipation. Let's see where FTDNA/YFull/ISOGG will place you exactly after BigY, and what connections can be made. Looking forward to knowing the results.

No need to thanks. I just told you abt. the ancestral/derived alleles; you did the rest. And yep, you seem indeed S47+.
My bet is that my uncle will be R-L2, but we know results are not always "logical", so to speak. The natural guess for you, for example, was R-DF27, but you're R-U152 after all. :)

As for the admixture, there is too much variation between different companies. 
The same way Iberians get SE European % in FTDNA, some Italians get Iberian %, as myself: 18%. Also 44% of SE Europe, 19% of British Isles, 10% of East Europe, 6% of Scandinavia, and the rest is Ashkenazi. I suppose my non-SE European DNA is shared ancestry, including the Iberian %, 'cause I'm not aware of migrations from Iberia to N. Italy in recent times. However, in MyHeritage, using FTDNA Raw Data, I get 49.9% of Italian and 0% of Iberian. The rest is 5.1% of Greek/S. Italian, 30.9% of Irish/Scotish/Welsh and 14.1% Balkan. Non-Italian % must be mostly shared ancestry as well. I'm certainly not 30% Irish etc. Indeed, I'm scoring now 0% of NW European in 23andMe Ancestry Composition, which seems the best when it comes to admixture, imo. Here I'm scoring 86.5% of Italian after the last update.

Cheers

@italouruguayan
Yes, it's intuitive to think of Lombards as a main source of R-U106 in N. Italy.

----------


## italouruguayan

Thank you ,Regio X!

----------


## Duarte

> My paternal grandfather was born in Veneto and the family is of far Lombard origin (Bergamo). Being my Y-DNA R1b U106 L44 L163-, I guess the most likely origin is Longobard, for a matter of probability. Does anyone know if there is currently any way to differentiate it from other Germanic peoples?





> @Fellow Duarte
> How cool! A Roman soldier - my "cousin" G-L42 - as the closest ancient match and now a supposed "Italic" Y-DNA (according to Maciamo): R-Z56. You're basically a Roman living fossil. Lol https://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplo...1b_Y-DNA.shtml
> Yeah, I know it's not that simple. :) So, kidding apart, I'm glad you figured out your main clade in anticipation. Let's see where FTDNA/YFull/ISOGG will place you exactly after BigY, and what connections can be made. Looking forward to knowing the results.
> 
> No need to thanks. I just told you abt. the ancestral/derived alleles; you did the rest. And yep, you seem indeed S47+.
> My bet is that my uncle will be R-L2, but we know results are not always "logical", so to speak. The natural guess for you, for example, was R-DF27, but you're R-U152 after all. :)
> 
> As for the admixture, there is too much variation between different companies. 
> The same way Iberians get SE European % in FTDNA, some Italians get Iberian %, as myself: 18%. Also 44% of SE Europe, 19% of British Isles, 10% of East Europe, 6% of Scandinavia, and the rest is Ashkenazi. I suppose my non-SE European DNA is shared ancestry, including the Iberian %, 'cause I'm not aware of migrations from Iberia to N. Italy in recent times. However, in MyHeritage, using FTDNA Raw Data, I get 49.9% of Italian and 0% of Iberian. The rest is 5.1% of Greek/S. Italian, 30.9% of Irish/Scotish/Welsh and 14.1% Balkan. Non-Italian % must be mostly shared ancestry as well. I'm certainly not 30% Irish etc. Indeed, I'm scoring now 0% of NW European in 23andMe Ancestry Composition, which seems the best when it comes to admixture, imo. Here I'm scoring 86.5% of Italian after the last update.
> ...


Thank you very much Regio, great hug, Italo. Cheers to both :)

----------


## HYGILI4K

Nice thread!  :Good Job: 


My male line if from Rovigo, Italy and my Y-DNA is R1b-df99 (kinda rare within the P312 group). Until now, as far as I know, the only ancient sample with this haplogroup is CL-94, from Amorim's study. The problem is that CL-94 had a mixed ancestry, roughly 1/3 CEU+GBR + 1/3 Tuscan and 1/3 Iberian (compared with data from 1000 genomes). According to analisys, he wasn't local to Collegno, but because of his autosomal background, I think it's hard to draw any conclusions about his origins (either germanic, italic or any other). He could be even from another part of Italy.

----------


## Duarte

Dear @Regio X.
It should be noted how shallow the results of the Y-67 FTDNA are. Good thing I ordered the Big Y-700. As I had already purchased the Y-67 before, the results came out yesterday indicating R-M269. Where is the novelty? When I was still a simple spermatozoon in a desperate search for an ovule to fertilize I already knew that, LOL:



The strangest thing is that the final subclade predicted by the "Y-DNA Haplogroup Predictor - NEVGEN", based on the FTDNA's "Short Tandem Repeats - STR" offers logical subclasses for my specicific case, no doubt, but that differs from those that I had found based on the "MyHeritage Data Raw" SNPs: NVGEN says I have a 77% chance of being R1b DF27> ZZ12> FGC20747:



Now I can only wait the Big Y-700 to give the final verdict. Until then there will be the doubt about which really is my deepest Y subclade .


Big hug :)

----------


## Regio X

> Dear @Regio X.
> It should be noted how shallow the results of the Y-67 FTDNA are. Good thing I ordered the Big Y-700. As I had already purchased the Y-67 before, the results came out yesterday indicating R-M269. Where is the novelty? When I was still a simple spermatozoon in a desperate search for an ovule to fertilize I already knew that, LOL:
> 
> The strangest thing is that the final subclade predicted by the "Y-DNA Haplogroup Predictor - NEVGEN", based on the FTDNA's "Short Tandem Repeats - STR" offers logical subclasses for my specicific case, no doubt, but that differs from those that I had found based on the "MyHeritage Data Raw" SNPs: NVGEN says I have a 77% chance of being R1b DF27> ZZ12> FGC20747:
> 
> Now I can only wait the Big Y-700 to give the final verdict. Until then there will be the doubt about which really is my deepest Y subclade .
> Big hug :)


Hi, Duarte.
Thanks for the update. I sent you more details in private, but tell me... This new test at MyHeritage also includes the SNPs DF27, U152, Z56 (or equivalent) and/or Z43? If so, what are your results for them?

----------


## Regio X

> Hi, Duarte.
> Thanks for the update. I sent you a private message with mote details, but tell me... This new test at MyHeritage also includes the SNPs DF27, U152, Z56 (or equivalent) and/or Z43? If so, what are your results for them?


You just told me in private. So U152-. Well, that changes things. Belonging to R-S47, as we know it today, would imply being positive for a set of related SNPs - not just for S47 itself -, including U152.

----------

