Langbartiska uuidarburt

Who We Are

The Langobardic Language

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1GoWqvtEV9RGGQgyBM9QACVBGXe1V3rUn?usp=sharing

The most common and damaging misconception about our ancestral language is that it cannot be recovered. This is simply not true.

Although Langobardic is often described as a Trümmersprache ("a language preserved mainly in fragments"), and the amount of surviving material is limited in comparison with languages that possess continuous written traditions, this does not prevent its recovery. Through the application of historical linguistics and comparative analysis, it is possible to reconstruct a fully functional language that can reasonably be regarded as a legitimate and authentic derivative of the original Langobardic language, which should continue to be called Langobardic.

The main contributors to the linguistic reconstruction are currently R. Uualander and R. Gualandris, who are working on the formalisation of the entire linguistic system. For the present stage of development, a temporary and informal set of rules is available for consultation. Contributions, suggestions and discussions are welcomed from all those interested in helping refine and develop the linguistic system.

The methodology used in the reconstruction follows a flexible but defined process designed to address the complex nature of the work. Some elements require further discussion, while the language must continue to expand in a way that remains coherent, historically grounded and faithful to the known characteristics of Langobardic.

The reconstruction methodology follows a flexible yet rigorously structured process designed to accommodate the inherently complex and cumulative nature of the work. Because the reconstruction of Langobardic necessarily involves both the recovery of incomplete evidence and the systematic development of a coherent linguistic system, the methodology operates simultaneously on four parallel and interdependent methodological layers. Each layer has a distinct function, yet none is entirely autonomous: information recovered at the Evidential Layer may be evaluated at the Analytical Layer, incorporated into the formal language at the Formalization Layer, and subsequently tested through productive use at the Operational Layer. Conversely, practical usage may reveal phenomena requiring renewed analysis and thus return material to the Analytical Layer.

The four methodological layers are as follows:

1. Evidential Layer — Data Recovery

The Evidential Layer consists exclusively of research and the recovery of potentially relevant linguistic evidence. No reconstruction is established at this stage; the purpose is solely to identify, collect, document, and evaluate material that may contribute to the reconstruction.

The principal sources include, among others:

• linguistic and historical-linguistic scholarship, including works by scholars such as W. Bruckner, K. Meyer, T. Vennemann, and others;
• fossilized words, expressions, and morphological elements preserved in later or modern Italo-Romance varieties;
• written records, historical attestations, and other potentially relevant documentary material;
• previously overlooked or insufficiently explored linguistic research and evidence.

The objective of this layer is therefore exhaustive recovery rather than interpretation. Potentially useful evidence is collected so that it may subsequently be subjected to systematic analysis.

2. Analytical Layer — Analysis

The Analytical Layer concerns the critical examination of the material recovered at the Evidential Layer, together with existing claims made by linguists and hypotheses developed by ourselves within the reconstruction.

At this stage, fossilized forms, written evidence, proposed linguistic developments, and theoretical interpretations are examined in order to determine whether they should be incorporated into, modified within, or excluded from the reconstructed language. A substantial proportion of the rules identified in previous linguistic scholarship can be transferred to the Formalization Layer with relatively little discussion, insofar as they rest on established or strongly supported evidence. Greater attention is reserved for inferences, interpretations, and competing explanations whose validity is not self-evident.

The principal methodological alternatives at this layer are therefore: retention, correction, or rejection.

Where appropriate, competing analyses may be debated extensively before a determination is made. The result of this process is a body of linguistic rules and conclusions sufficiently justified to be considered for formal incorporation into the language.

3. Formalization Layer — Formalization of the Language

At the Formalization Layer, the results of the preceding analysis are incorporated into Langobardic as a coherent, internally structured, and fully usable linguistic system.

The language is not treated here merely as a collection of reconstructed forms. Rather, its phonology, morphology, syntax, lexicon, and other relevant features are formalized so that the language can be consistently learned and productively employed. Newly recovered material, newly established rules, and justified modifications are incorporated directly into the formal system.

At present, the principal contributors to this linguistic reconstruction are R. Uualander and R. Gualandris, who are currently engaged in the formalization of the linguistic system as a whole. This ongoing work constitutes the first version of the database and reflects the present stage of development of the formalized language; the formalization process itself is not regarded as being intrinsically assigned to these individuals, but is presently being carried out by them.

The Formalization Layer therefore constitutes the normative linguistic framework: it is the point at which analytical conclusions cease to be merely proposals and become operative components of the reconstructed language.

4. Operational Layer — Language Usage

The Operational Layer concerns the productive use of Langobardic by participants in everyday linguistic activity. Its purpose is not merely to demonstrate that the formalized system can generate individual forms, but to develop and test genuine linguistic competence through continued internalization and use.

This layer has two complementary components: internalization and conversation.

Internalization does not require an interlocutor. A participant must be capable of thinking, commenting internally, formulating personal reflections, and otherwise producing Langobardic independently. When a participant wishes to express or translate a thought for which no established Langobardic element is yet available, the specialized method is applied first: the missing element is inferred on the basis of the participant's internalized Langobardic linguistic patterns. This initial reconstruction serves as the primary candidate and may subsequently function as a secondary diagnostic indicator, for example in evaluating the strength and reliability of the participant's current Langobardic intuition.

Established rules are then applied. The relevant developments from Proto-West Germanic to Langobardic are followed, together with any additional Langobardic-specific developments required to derive the final reconstructed form.

Where established rules do not permit a sufficiently clear reconstruction, a comparative procedure is employed. A relevant comparative framework is established for the element in question, ordinarily including Proto-Germanic, Old Saxon, Old Frisian, Old English, Old High German, and any other languages of demonstrable relevance. Related forms are examined and their historical plausibility assessed. The specialized method is then applied to infer the element according to internalized Langobardic patterns, producing a primary reconstruction candidate. This candidate is subsequently compared with the forms identified through comparative analysis, and the evidence from both procedures is used to determine the final form.

Conversation, by contrast, concerns interaction between participants. In conversation, participants rely primarily upon their internalized linguistic patterns and intuition, conducting the interaction exclusively in Langobardic. Through continued use, the language may undergo a degree of natural self-regulation, as participants spontaneously adjust their usage to one another and recurrent patterns emerge through interaction.

Such spontaneous adjustments do not, however, automatically become formal rules. Where a disagreement arises, or where a novel pattern appears to require explicit recognition, the matter is formulated as a proposal and returned to the Analytical Layer. It is then subjected to analysis and discussion by the participants. Only after the proposal has been debated and approved through the established decision-making process may it be admitted as a new rule at the Formalization Layer.

The four methodological layers thus form a continuous methodological cycle rather than a strictly linear sequence. The Evidential Layer provides the evidence; the Analytical Layer determines its validity and significance; the Formalization Layer incorporates the resulting conclusions into the linguistic system; and the Operational Layer tests, internalizes, and potentially generates further developments within that system. In this way, the reconstructed language remains simultaneously evidence-based, historically grounded, formally coherent, and capable of productive use.

Ethnicity of our people

Lombardy has always lived with the same question: who are we really?

We have repeatedly attempted to answer it in many different ways, arguing about regional identities, nationalistic Lombard identities, modern Italian narratives, etc., but they all, without exception, start with the same exact implicit and silent action: the rejection of our very name:

“Lombardia” is not merely the name of a region, nor simply a geographical label. It is our name.

So under what pretext do we reject its meaning?

Some may object that our Langobardic ancestors represent only one part of our ancestry.

And this is where we have to add an important clarification to an already well-known fact: no people is homogeneous. The modern Lombard population descends from many different populations, but those populations were not one people simply because they inhabited the same territory.

This distinction is obscured when the populations are flattened into broad categories such as “Celtic,” “Italic,” etc.

The Insubri, Cenomani, Leponzi, Orobi, Camuni, Liguri and Etruscans were distinct peoples, not two homogeneous “celtic” and “italic” populations. Once considered separately, rather than compressed into broad ancestral categories, the proportions become more meaningful.

It is important to notice that when separating our own Lombard populations, another fact becomes apparent: the Langobards emerge as a particularly significant individual component of our ancestry.

This does not necessarily mean that the Langobards represent the majority of the modern Lombard population, nor does it make their contribution uniform across every region. But when compared with the other individual populations rather than with an artificially combined “Celtic” or “italic” category, whille simultaneously comparing those broad categories to “Langobardic as an isolated group we notice that the Langobardic proportion is especially notable.

Having separated all these peoples leaves us with a complex situation: these peoples are part of our ancestry. But it would be absurd to say that we are:

Liguri, Etruschi, Camuni, Insubri, Cenomani, Orobi, Leponzi and Langobards

all at the same time.

Ancestry alone does not mean that every ancestral identity continues simultaneously as our own.

This leads to a more fundamental question:

what makes a people remain itself?

At an ontological level, it seems reasonable to declare that what defines a people is the memory of the ancestors it maintains. This is not an abstract principle proposed merely to explain how a new identity might emerge from a mixed population; it is observable in the persistence of peoples whose ancestry is itself highly mixed. A people does not cease to be itself simply because the ancestry of its present population has become substantially mixed with that of other peoples.

Austrians (Bavarians), for example, do not consider themselves Bavarian-Slavic merely because Slavic populations contributed a considerable proportion of their ancestry.

Neither do they identify with all their ancestral components:

Bajuvarian
Celtic/Hallstatt groups
Alemannic
West Slavic groups
Czech
Slovak
South Slavic groups
Slovene
Carantanian
Avar

Even when Bavarian descent no longer represents the majority of all combined components.

Ancestry therefore tells us how a population was formed, while the memory it maintains of its ancestors is what allows a people to remain itself through that formation.

Which brings us to our next question:

What, then, united the peoples of Lombardy? And which memory defines us?

The common Latin language.

But the Latins did not merely transmit a language. They arrived as conquerors and imposed upon the existing peoples both their language and a common political identity. The populations already present were Latinized, and their distinct identities were gradually displaced by the language, culture and political framework of Rome.

This did not make those populations originally Latin, nor did the Latins become a component of those populations. The Latin population transmitted a language and political identity that were imposed upon the inhabitants of the region; it did not transform them into a Latin population through demographic arrival.

We must therefore return to the concept that a people is defined by the memory of the ancestors it maintains, and ask ourselves: “Which memory of the populations we descend from can be continued?”

And this question has a very clear answer:

1- Latins are not our ancestors

A conquered population can adopt the language and culture of its conquerors without becoming the same population. Latin culture transformed Lombardy, but this does not mean that the people of Lombardy became Latins, who were originally a very distant population.

By choosing to identify with a Latin memory, we effectively continued the identity of a people that is not ours.

This is why a Latin-based identity is an invalid explanation of Lombard identity: it mistakes an imposed culture, later shared throughout the region, for the ancestral identity of the people who inhabited it.

This does not mean that we should reject every aspect of our own specificities developed from Latin culture, but it means that we should in no case confuse it with our legitimate origins.

2- The Insubri, Cenomani, Leponzi, Orobi, Camuni, Liguri and Etruscans

did not leave us anything remarkable, most often not even anything traceable to ourselves.

3- Langobards

The contrast with our Langobardic ancestors is fundamental: they left us the clearest and most direct continuity. First of all, our Langobardic ancestors did not merely conquer a territory and impose a political identity upon an existing population like the Latins did. They arrived in Lombardy as an entire population, establishing themselves there as a people.

The populations that can be considered

On the other hand, the Langobards are significant not only because estimates place their population as high as 300,000, with identifiable genetic markers, but mainly because they left us identifiable elements of historical continuity.

The Langobards left us:

1- our name: Lombardia, the land of the Langobards.

2- The Langobards transmitted a large amount of surnames. A distinctive feature of these surnames is the exceptionally high proportion of rare and original personal-name formations, rather than widespread, fashionable or toponymic names. This pattern differs from other Germanic name survivals in Italy: Frankish influence was primarily political, while Gothic names generally form a distinct and recognizable category.

The persistence of Langobardic surnames also illustrates the survival of this inheritance. These names are not complete genealogies, but they are names transmitted through generations.

3- The Langobards left place names throughout Lombardy and Ticino.

The contribution was therefore not merely demographic. Recognizable elements of Langobardic identity were transmitted to us.

4- And perhaps most importantly, our entire memory has been recorded by Paul Uuarnefrit in Historia Langobardorum, a remarkable work that allows us to fulfill the condition completely: we have a single clear ancestral component that comes with a complete memory.

This leaves us with three possibilities:

1. The original populations, understood as distinct peoples rather than flattened “Celtic” or “Italic” categories, leaving no remarkable traces.
2. The Latin-derived culture, which became common through conquest and assimilation but does not establish Latin ancestry.
3. The Langobards, whose demographic contribution was particularly significant as an individual component and whose name, place names and surnames remain embedded in the region, which still bears the same name. They additionally left us the entire history of the people, written by a Langobard.

The conclusion should be clear.

Yet the question remains: why have Lombards never reached it themselves?

For centuries, Lombards have adopted competing answers to the question of who they are. Even the recently adopted flag is revealing: it features the Rosa Camuna, a symbol associated with one of the region’s ancient populations, an action that reads more as an artistic attempt than as a flag that represents its people.

While the land itself continues to bear the name of the Langobards.

The irony is difficult to miss.

The answer is simple:

the Lombards are blind to their legitimate origin because it has become culturally distant.

The inheritance did not disappear; the connection to it did. Risorgimentalist ideas, Roman idealism and the construction of a broader “Mediterranean” identity helped sever that connection, replacing it with claims such as “we are Romans” or “Germanic peoples are invaders.”

The result is an identity in which Rome is treated as “ours,” while the Langobards are treated as barbaric outsiders.

This distinction is reinforced by language. Because we now speak Italian and other Lombard Latin languages, Latin-derived languages, the Roman inheritance appears naturally continuous with us. But as we noticed earlier, a common language does not establish common ancestry. The people of Lombardy were Latinized; they were not thereby transformed into a Latin population.

The Langobardic inheritance is distinctive because it combines a particularly significant individual demographic contribution, historical continuity and identifiable transmission through the name of the land, its place names and its surnames.

We continue to bear the Langobardic name.

We continue to inhabit the land that bears it.

We continue to carry the Langobardic inheritance.

We are the Langobards.

And yet we have become accustomed to looking everywhere except at the name itself.

The Lombard people can be understood simply as:

a people with a forgotten origin.

This is why Lombards should be encouraged to surpass the misleading modern narrative and embrace our true origin.

Genetics

about genetics, our conclusions are available in the documents:

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1s24H5xnOgx8dwkqxUu5gpcoaVMCxq4zO?usp=sharing

Music & Patriotic Songs

Our musical expression primarily consists of two genres that we consider central to the revival.

The collection can be browsed as it continues to develop, with new songs and compositions being added over time.

All those who identify with their Langobardic ancestral heritage are welcome to contribute to our artistic, musical, linguistic and cultural endeavours.

One of our most important works concerning the revival of Langobardic folk song traditions is the collection "Historia Langobardorum", a series of narrative songs based on the stories written by Paul Uuarnefrit in Historia Langobardorum. The collection is still in progress.

Paintings & Other Forms of Art

browse art catalogue: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/15d5hxIAnnTBzCOEiFXuRdU-9wUWyzs8f?usp=sharing

Gambara uuisit then uueg — R. Uualander

"Gambara uuisit then uueg" (Gambara shows the way), created by R. Uualander, is one of our first paintings.

The figure represented is Gambara, traditionally referred to as the "mother of the Langobards." She is depicted as a divine figure on a black background, which symbolises the present condition of the Lombard people — a period of cultural loss and obscurity. The beauty of the central figure, combined with the white dress and the golden reflection radiating from her hair against this dark and menacing background, aims to create the image of a timeless and transcendent symbol addressing the people in the present time.

By addressing the viewer as part of the Langobardic people, the composition reinforces the continuity between ancestral tradition and the present generation, portraying Gambara as a symbolic guide during modern times in a way that reflects the original legend.

The painting conveys the message that our historical symbols, such as Gambara, continue to be relevant, because the Langobardic people themselves continue to exist despite the difficult state of their cultural reality.

Leupichis uuidarquimit — G. Garibaldi

One of the paintings of the Langobardic Revival is "Leupichis uuidarquimit" ("Leupichis Returns"), created by G. Garibaldi.

The painting illustrates the beginning of Leupichis' return to his homeland, as recounted by Paul Uuarnefrit in Historia Langobardorum. Having escaped from captivity among the Huns, the young Leupichis crosses the winter wilderness with only his bow, his arrows and a small supply of food. In the distance, a wolf observes him, foreshadowing its role as the guide that will lead him on the road back to his homeland.

Within Langobardic tradition, the wolf represents far more than a wild animal. Its appearance marks the beginning of Leupichis' providential return and symbolizes guidance, perseverance and the enduring bond between the Langobardic people and their homeland. By depicting the moment before the wolf reveals its purpose, the painting emphasizes uncertainty, endurance and the hope of return despite seemingly insurmountable circumstances.

The collection can be browsed as it continues to develop, with new songs and compositions being added over time.

Again, all those who identify with their Langobardic ancestral heritage are welcome to contribute to our artistic, musical, linguistic and cultural endeavours.

Patriotic Symbols

The submission of patriotic symbols, including flags, coats of arms and other forms of visual representation, is always welcomed.

However, the adoption, modification or replacement of established symbols, such as the national flag, must be subject to a vote involving all recognized participants.

Current flag of the Langobardic people

The flag is based on a readaptation of the patterns and colors observed on the Iron Crown of Lombardy, combined with a traditional Langobardic spear placed across it. The design symbolizes the assertion of the Langobardic people and their historical identity within the political and demographic realities shaped throughout history.

Media

LRS: Langobardic radio channel

The service will begin shortly.

Coming soon

LTV1: Tv channel

The service will begin shortly.

Coming soon

Events

Politics

Voting

The Langobardic Revival follows a participatory decision-making process in which recognized participants may take part in decisions concerning the development of shared symbols, cultural standards and other matters requiring collective approval.

Proposals may be submitted for consideration and, when a decision requires collective validation, a vote involving all recognized participants will be organized. Each proposal is presented with the necessary information before voting, allowing participants to consider the subject and express their opinion.

The purpose of this system is to ensure that important elements of our common identity, such as national symbols and other representative aspects of our culture, are adopted through the participation of those who form the Langobardic community.