World Families Forums - The Origin of L21

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
November 25, 2014, 11:18:31 PM
Home Help Search Login Register

+  World Families Forums
|-+  General Forums - Note: You must Be Logged In to post. Anyone can browse.
| |-+  R1b General (Moderator: rms2)
| | |-+  The Origin of L21
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10 Go Down Print
Author Topic: The Origin of L21  (Read 28168 times)
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #50 on: January 06, 2009, 08:56:31 AM »

I mentioned this in the "German R-L21*" thread, but I thought I should mention it here, since it is a piece of relevant  news.

We have added another German R-L21* to the project, surname Wigand. He traces his most distant y ancestor to Wuerzburg in Bavaria, which, interestingly, was the site of a Celtic settlement and hillfort dated to at least 1,000 BC.

He is represented by Placemark 80 on the R-L21* Map at the link in my signature below and also on our project's "Results" page (second map).

I could be wrong, but I think we are getting enough Germans who are L21+ that it's becoming difficult to chalk them all up to errant Brits, Irish and Scots.

And an L21+ whose ancestor came from the site of a Celtic hillfort dated to 1,000 BC? I think Holmes and Watson (or Crick and Watson) would call that a clue.
« Last Edit: January 06, 2009, 08:57:39 AM by rms2 » Logged

secherbernard
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 155


« Reply #51 on: January 06, 2009, 09:44:46 AM »

I think so than L21 is celtic.
I don't know if L21 is scythian. I thought than scythians and celts lived in the same time, with scythians in easter country than celts, but may be celts and scythians had the same ancesters. Perhaps kurgane culture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurgan) is these same anceters?
Logged

YDNA: R-DF13+ L69+ DYS464X: cccc.3
mtDNA: U6a7a1
mtDNA of my father: U5a2c
YDNA of my maternal uncle: I1*
Ysearch and Mitosearch: UE9BU
Ysearch of my maternal uncle: CEC59

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #52 on: January 06, 2009, 12:23:00 PM »

I'm not sure. I know some scholars see a connection between the Scythians, or at least the ancient Cimmerians, and the Celts.

I am excited to look up some references to the Celtic settlement in Wuerzburg when I get home this evening.

Things are getting interesting!
Logged

GoldenHind
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 731


« Reply #53 on: January 06, 2009, 06:23:48 PM »

I mentioned this in the "German R-L21*" thread, but I thought I should mention it here, since it is a piece of relevant  news.

We have added another German R-L21* to the project, surname Wigand. He traces his most distant y ancestor to Wuerzburg in Bavaria, which, interestingly, was the site of a Celtic settlement and hillfort dated to at least 1,000 BC.

He is represented by Placemark 80 on the R-L21* Map at the link in my signature below and also on our project's "Results" page (second map).

I could be wrong, but I think we are getting enough Germans who are L21+ that it's becoming difficult to chalk them all up to errant Brits, Irish and Scots.

And an L21+ whose ancestor came from the site of a Celtic hillfort dated to 1,000 BC? I think Holmes and Watson (or Crick and Watson) would call that a clue.
Since L21 is such a large presence in Ireland and Scotland, I can't see how it should surprise anyone to find it in areas associated with the Celts in Europe. My problem is the tendency to associate it exclusively with the Celts, and try to find some Celtic connection for every L21 in Europe. If the SNP is 4000 years old, as some have suggested, it may have spread during the Neolithic to parts of Europe outside the area where the Celts later arose during the Iron Age. I am not saying this is necessarily so, but it seems to me a reasonable possibilty. The amount of L21 in Scandinavia should ultimately resolve the issue.
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #54 on: January 06, 2009, 08:44:57 PM »

Not every time someone makes a connection between this or that subclade and the Celts or any other such ancient group should one read into it the idea that the one making the connection intends that the subclade under discussion is exclusively limited to that ancient group.

I think there is good evidence (thus far) for a strong Celt-L21 connection, but one should not take away from that the idea that I think L21 must always be Celtic everywhere it is found no matter what the circumstances (unless I actually say that, which I am never likely to do).







Logged

Nolan Admin - Glenn Allen Nolen
Project Coordinator
Old Hand
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 292


WWW
« Reply #55 on: January 07, 2009, 01:51:54 AM »

Hill forts appear to be common of the Kurgan culture.

http://www.iras.ucalgary.ca/~volk/sylvia/Kurgans.htm

And Kurgans or burial mounds are found throughout Ireland. 
Logged
GoldenHind
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 731


« Reply #56 on: January 07, 2009, 09:09:05 PM »

Not every time someone makes a connection between this or that subclade and the Celts or any other such ancient group should one read into it the idea that the one making the connection intends that the subclade under discussion is exclusively limited to that ancient group.

I think there is good evidence (thus far) for a strong Celt-L21 connection, but one should not take away from that the idea that I think L21 must always be Celtic everywhere it is found no matter what the circumstances (unless I actually say that, which I am never likely to do).








I didn't mean to suggest you were implying that all L21 is Celtic. While that may eventually turn out to be the case, I don't think a non-celtic L21 in northern Europe can be ruled out just yet.
My comment was actually directed to those who might misinterpret your reference to Holmes and Watson as proof that celts and L21 are one and the same.
Logged
Terry Barton
Administrator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1663


« Reply #57 on: January 19, 2009, 12:44:09 PM »

I've been trying to figure out what FTDNA calls L21+, so I can see how it fits into the tree vs my L2+

Is there an online definition of L21+?  And, what is the "long name" for L21 - that FTDNA uses?  (based on the L21 Project, it appears to be R1b1b2a1b* - is that it?)

My L2+ is called R1b1b2a1b7c at FTDNA.  For anyone not familiar with it, the progression (partial)  is:

R1b*               - M343+
R1b1b2*         - M269+
R11bb2a1b*    - P312+
R1b1b2a1b7*  - U152+
R1b1b2a1b7c   - L2+

As I am also L20-, I am R1b1b2a1b7c*
 

Terry
Logged
Nolan Admin - Glenn Allen Nolen
Project Coordinator
Old Hand
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 292


WWW
« Reply #58 on: January 19, 2009, 02:27:29 PM »

It is not on the YCC tree, yet.

http://www.isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_HapgrpR09.html

R1b1b2a1b6   L21/S145

http://www.dna-fingerprint.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=21&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

Working Draft of Y Chromosone Tree Below R-M269 (Thomas Krahn)

L21=rs11799226

Logged
vtilroe
Project Coordinator
Old Hand
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 150


« Reply #59 on: January 19, 2009, 07:52:30 PM »

FTDNA's tree follows the lead of the YCC, and the YCC hasn't updated their tree (issued an errata) since August 2008.
http://ycc.biosci.arizona.edu/progress/errata2008.html

Presumably the next update is supposed to happen during the next genetics conference this spring.
Logged

YSearch & MitoSearch: 2GXWW


yDNA: R-U106*


mtDNA: U5a1a1 (Genbank# GQ368895)


R-P312-WTY Project Admin http://tinyurl.com/daertg

Terry Barton
Administrator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1663


« Reply #60 on: January 19, 2009, 08:41:26 PM »

Thanks for the info.  Interesting. 

My Haplotree at FTDNA shows R1b1b2a1b6 as being defined by P-66.  Is P66 yet another name for L21/S145?  Or, is L21 downstream of P66?

My L2+ is shown as denoting R1b1b2a1b7c in my FTDNA haplotree - so L2 must have been included in the last YCC.   

L20 also doesn't show up in my tree - and it is downstream of L2 for my Clade (I tested negative for it) so I guess that is part of the same group as L21. 

Are there any estimates yet of the proportions of the 7 (or more) known Deep Clades of R1b1b2a1b ? 

Terry
Logged
vtilroe
Project Coordinator
Old Hand
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 150


« Reply #61 on: January 19, 2009, 09:33:44 PM »

Thanks for the info.  Interesting. 

My Haplotree at FTDNA shows R1b1b2a1b6 as being defined by P-66.  Is P66 yet another name for L21/S145?  Or, is L21 downstream of P66?

My L2+ is shown as denoting R1b1b2a1b7c in my FTDNA haplotree - so L2 must have been included in the last YCC.   

L20 also doesn't show up in my tree - and it is downstream of L2 for my Clade (I tested negative for it) so I guess that is part of the same group as L21. 

Are there any estimates yet of the proportions of the 7 (or more) known Deep Clades of R1b1b2a1b ? 

Terry
P66 is downstream of L21 and is designated as R1b1b2a1b6c on ISOGG's tree, and is apparently a private SNP.

L2 is downstream of U152/S28 and L20 is downstream of L2; neither have been published by the YCC yet, so I guess I need to take back what I said about FTDNA following YCC's lead.  It seems that there are three R-clade phylogenetic trees being developed in parallel, and none of them are in sync.

These crazy hierarchical clade designations really need to be retired, because they're only going to get worse in the months and years ahead.
Logged

YSearch & MitoSearch: 2GXWW


yDNA: R-U106*


mtDNA: U5a1a1 (Genbank# GQ368895)


R-P312-WTY Project Admin http://tinyurl.com/daertg

Nolan Admin - Glenn Allen Nolen
Project Coordinator
Old Hand
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 292


WWW
« Reply #62 on: January 19, 2009, 11:01:38 PM »

"It seems that there are three R-clade phylogenetic trees being developed in parallel, and none of them are in sync."

Every company appears to be using their own nomenclature. I got a question on the 13th of this month from a Genebase customer using R1b1b2a2g for the old S28+.

Confusing!

Logged
didier
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 26


« Reply #63 on: March 05, 2009, 12:00:37 PM »

I am reactivating this thread which seems the heart of all questions on L21. I don't know if the results posted by Rich beginning of December were significantly changed since then. One thing that changed is that I read  Henri Hubert's book (see first post) ! I do agree that L21 is a good candidate for Goidel  as described by Henri Hubert. What doesn't fit is that Henri Hubert was somehow linking this northern group to the Italiots while no L21+ were found in central Italy so far. Well , it could be that the link is  P312  and L21 is the specific northern branch. A northern branch is , more or less , pointing to a southern branch ; any missing SNP ?
Logged
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #64 on: March 05, 2009, 12:59:53 PM »

I am reactivating this thread which seems the heart of all questions on L21. I don't know if the results posted by Rich beginning of December were significantly changed since then. One thing that changed is that I read  Henri Hubert's book (see first post) ! I do agree that L21 is a good candidate for Goidel  as described by Henri Hubert. What doesn't fit is that Henri Hubert was somehow linking this northern group to the Italiots while no L21+ were found in central Italy so far. Well , it could be that the link is  P312  and L21 is the specific northern branch. A northern branch is , more or less , pointing to a southern branch ; any missing SNP ?
Yes, the Goidels/Gaels are candidates for the spread of L21+.  The only thing I don't get is that they were Q-Celtic speaking, whereas many L21+ seem to have been in P-Celtic seeking places. ...........  maybe it is just one overlay of L21+ people on top of another.   
Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
didier
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 26


« Reply #65 on: March 05, 2009, 07:15:58 PM »

Well, Ireland is Q-Celtic and mainly L21 as it seems. Other parts of L21 settlements were reached by U106+ populations, like in England, and that would fit with the description of recent "Belgae"  mentioned by Henri Hubert. So, in England a kind of  Belgae aristocracy  would have brought the P-Celtic language. If we compare to what was the impact on vocabulary  of  William's victory  followed by  the control of the country by a limited number of (french speaking) Normands  I find it easy to accept the idea that the change to P-Celtic was quick with many  L21  still there. 
Logged
GoldenHind
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 731


« Reply #66 on: March 05, 2009, 10:54:44 PM »

In looking at the map, I find the concentration in Germany running from Cologne to Stuttgart of great interest.
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #67 on: March 07, 2009, 09:43:45 AM »

In looking at the map, I find the concentration in Germany running from Cologne to Stuttgart of great interest.

Yes, and as I recall from looking at Kr├╝ger's haplotype in YSearch and at his FTDNA Y-DNA matches, he has quite a few matches in Nordrhein-Westfalen (old Westphalia). I contacted some of them to recruit them to test for P312 and L21 but have gotten zero responses thus far.

Now if we could just get some people with Westphalian ancestry to test . . .

« Last Edit: March 07, 2009, 09:44:48 AM by rms2 » Logged

GoldenHind
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 731


« Reply #68 on: March 07, 2009, 06:19:22 PM »

In looking at the map, I find the concentration in Germany running from Cologne to Stuttgart of great interest.
It has been recently mentioned elsewhere that the Rhine area also shows a very strong concentration of U106, greater in fact than Frisia or northern Germany. The suggestion has been  that this may be because this area was one from which there were a lot of migrants to America, and that because most of the German testees are actually from North America, the Rhine concentration may be due to a sampling bias. I think the possibility is at least worthy of consideration.
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #69 on: March 08, 2009, 01:24:39 PM »

In looking at the map, I find the concentration in Germany running from Cologne to Stuttgart of great interest.
It has been recently mentioned elsewhere that the Rhine area also shows a very strong concentration of U106, greater in fact than Frisia or northern Germany. The suggestion has been  that this may be because this area was one from which there were a lot of migrants to America, and that because most of the German testees are actually from North America, the Rhine concentration may be due to a sampling bias. I think the possibility is at least worthy of consideration.

Yes, and I have considered that. Just the same, from what I have seen of most of the surveys and maps based on genetic studies in Europe, R1b1b2 of all kinds decreases in frequency as one moves east. So, I suspect we will see more L21+ in western than in eastern Germany.

But it is a fact that we just don't know, and we have a few L21+ guys with Eastern European ancestry. I would like to see a thorough study of y dna in Europe, or at least of R1b1b2 and all its subclades . . . but I'm not holding my breath waiting for it, especially in this economy.
Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #70 on: March 28, 2009, 12:25:51 PM »

I wanted to bump this thread back up for continued discussion, since we now have more R-L21* results than when we last spoke.

Several of us have mentioned Henri Hubert and his book (which was originally in two volumes), The History of the Celtic Peoples. If you don't have it yet, take my word for it, the book is worth buying.

In Chapter I ("The Origins of the Celts") of Part Two, "Movements of the Celtic Peoples," Hubert writes:

Quote
The fact which dominates the whole history of the Celts, and apparently starts it, following as it did closely upon the breaking-up of the Italo-Celtic community (if that abstract concept ever corresponded to the existence of a definite social group), is the separation into two groups of peoples, whose languages became different as has been explained above - that is, the Goidelic, or Irish, group, and the Brythonic group, which includes the Gauls.
      The separation of the Celtic dialects is a fact of far greater importance than the supposed distinction between the Celts and the Gauls. It implies a fairly deep division between the peoples which spoke these two groups of dialects, and also a fairly long separation, a fairly long interval between the migrations of the two Celtic bodies . . . In other words, it leads one to believe that the occupation of the British Isles by the Celts and of Ireland by the Goidels took place long before - centuries before - the historical movements of the Brythonic peoples . . . We must go back to the Bronze Age for the earlier invasion (p.131).
. . . The movements of the Celts were, in my opinion, likewise in two waves, and must have been governed by the same demographic laws [i.e., as those that governed the movement of other Bronze Age Indo-European peoples], by the same general facts in the history of civilization. In other words, the breaking-off of the Goidelic group, and probably the first Celtic colonization of the British Isles, must have occurred at the same time as the descent of the Latins into Italy, and that of the first Greek invaders into Greece. The differentiation of the Brythonic, Umbrian, and Doric dialects took place afterwards at some time unknown, among the groups which had remained behind and in contact with one another.
. . . In short, the dividing of the Celtic peoples into two groups is an ancient event, of very great importance, connected with the great facts of European prehistory. It is the consequence of the breaking-up of the Italo-Celtic community (p. 139).

Hubert then spends some time discussing the "cradle of the Celts" and concludes:

Quote
Western Germany fulfills these conditions exactly. It is full of place names of Celtic origin, quite especially in the south-west. A very large number have survived in recognizable form (p. 147).

This post is a little long, so I'll get into what he says about the Goidels in the next one. 
« Last Edit: March 28, 2009, 02:18:43 PM by rms2 » Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #71 on: March 28, 2009, 01:27:36 PM »

In Part V of "Origins of the Celts," Hubert discusses "The Goidelic Cradle":

Quote
But whence did the Goidels come, and when did they come? Where must we look for their earliest home on the Continent and their starting-point? Probably they came from north of the Brythonic domain, and it is to them that tradition refers when it tells that the Celts used to live on the low coasts of the North Sea. They must have left those shores very early, for hardly a trace of them remains there (p. 169).
. . . In the first period of the Bronze Age there arrived in the British Isles, coming from the Continent, people with very marked characteristics. The old Neolithic inhabitants (among whom I include those of all the beginning of the Bronze Age) were long-heads of Mediterranean type, who built for their dead, or, at least, for the more distinguished of them, tumuli with a funeral chamber known as the "long barrows", in which one sometimes finds those curious bell-shaped beakers adorned at regular intervals with bands of incised or stamped decoration, of a very simple and austere type. The newcomers were of quite a different type, and had other funeral practices.
      They buried their dead under round tumuli, known as "round barrows", in graves in which the body was placed in a crouching position on one side and enclosed in stone flags or woodwork. Later they burned them. In their graves there were zoned beakers (Fig. 33), but of a late type in which the neck is distinguished from the belly, or vases derived from these beakers . . . The grave goods comprised buttons with a V-shaped boring, flint and copper daggers, arrow-heads, and flat perforated pieces of schist which are "bracers", or bowman's wristguards. The skeletons were of a new type: tall, with round heads of a fairly constant shape, the brow receding, the supraciliary ridge prominent, the cheek-bones highly developed, and the jaws massive and projecting so as to present a dip at the base of the nose. I have already described them as one of the types represented in Celtic burials.
      The association of the physical type of this people with the beaker has led British anthropologists to call it the Beaker Folk . . . In Scotland they were accompanied by other brachycephals, with a higher index and of Alpine type. In general they advanced from south to north and from east to west, and their progress lasted long enough for there to be a very marked difference in furniture between their oldest and latest tombs.
. . .  Their progress was a conquest. It is evident that they subdued and assimilated the previous occupants of the country (pp. 171-173).

So when does he really answer the "where from?" question? Here:

Quote
It is at least certain that the Beaker Folk went from Germany to Britain, and not from Britain to Germany. The typical round-heads of the round barrows are a Nordic type, which may have grown up on the plains of Northern Europe . . . Secondly, the similarity of the British barrows to the tumuli of North Germany at the beginning of the Bronze Age and the constant practice of burying the dead, when inhumation is practised, in a contracted position, as in Central Germany; and lastly, the similarity of many of the urns of the round barrows, which are late developments of the zoned beaker, and of other vases found there, to the so-called Neolithic pottery of North Germany in the region of the megaliths.
. . . At this point it is legitimate to ask what became of all the people who set up the megalithic monuments in the north-west of Germany, and what became of the tribes of bowmen who were mingled with them, for it is a dogma of German Siedelungsgeschichte that all the north-west seaboard, Westphalia, and Hanover were emptied of their inhabitants before the second period of the Bronze Age.
      Many scholars, British, German, and French, have accordingly thought that the mixed population of this part of Germany, which one day set off and emigrated, was the original stock of the Goidels (pp. 175-176).
. . . The most obscure point in the hypothesis adopted is the original position of the future Goidels, for if the zone-beaker folk was the nucleus which organized them it is very hard to determine where it was itself formed. Moreover, it spread over almost the whole of the Celtic domain and left descendants there. In any case it occupied all the seaboard districts between the Rhine and the Elbe which remained outside the frontiers previously mentioned. These were the districts which were emptied by the migration of the Goidels to Britain.
. . . Was it a total or a partial emigration? It was probably partial, for there remained what is usually left behind by peoples which have been a long time in a country where they have been engaged in adapting the ground to human life, namely the distribution of dwellings and the shape of villages and fields. In the western part of North-Western Germany, in Western Hanover, and Westphalia, cultivated land and dwellings are arranged in a manner which is foreign to Germany, or has become so. It is the arrangement found in Ireland (Fig. 35), part of England, and France.
. . . Agricultural peoples never change their abode entirely. This is an indication that the Goidels did not leave in one body, and that they did not all leave.
      What was the reason of their emigration? It was certainly not weakness or poverty. Perhaps there was some encroachment of the sea on a coast which has altered much. Perhaps some invention in the matter of navigation was discovered. The megalith builders whom the Goidels surrounded were certainly sailors who were not afraid of crossing the North Sea (pp. 187-188).
« Last Edit: March 28, 2009, 02:11:53 PM by rms2 » Logged

Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #72 on: March 28, 2009, 11:26:04 PM »

Very interesting hypothesis which seems to fit with what we are finding out.  I"ve read Hubert's "The Rise of the Celts" and I just found this used on-line... I guess it is the old two volume set since it is used.  How do you think L21 plays in this visa vi U152 and P312*?    Was U106 involved, or is it strictly Germanic?

Quote from: The History of the Celtic Peoples
In other words, the breaking-off of the Goidelic group, and probably the first Celtic colonization of the British Isles, must have occurred at the same time as the descent of the Latins into Italy, and that of the first Greek invaders into Greece.
In terms of the excerpt I copied above, what is the he timeframe and duration of the splits in the Celtics, Latins and Greeks?  The modern PIE linguists think Greek and Hittite languages broke off from early PIE, much before the Italo-Celtic split. 

Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #73 on: March 29, 2009, 01:52:11 PM »

Very interesting hypothesis which seems to fit with what we are finding out.  I"ve read Hubert's "The Rise of the Celts" and I just found this used on-line... I guess it is the old two volume set since it is used.  How do you think L21 plays in this visa vi U152 and P312*?    Was U106 involved, or is it strictly Germanic?

I think to begin with U152 may have come from south and east of L21. It stayed on the Continent for the P-Celtic development and probably came north and west a little later, with the La Tene culture. I do think U152 in Britain is mostly if not all Celtic, but it showed up as P-Celtic.

It seems likely to me that some of the Celts were U106. There was probably a lot of fraying around the edges when it comes to these ethno-linguistic groups, and a lot of mixing and moving back and forth went on.

L21 was probably also part of the movement of P-Celtic speakers, even though it probably made up the bulk of the much earlier movement of Goidels into the British Isles.

Quote from: The History of the Celtic Peoples
In other words, the breaking-off of the Goidelic group, and probably the first Celtic colonization of the British Isles, must have occurred at the same time as the descent of the Latins into Italy, and that of the first Greek invaders into Greece.
In terms of the excerpt I copied above, what is the he timeframe and duration of the splits in the Celtics, Latins and Greeks?  The modern PIE linguists think Greek and Hittite languages broke off from early PIE, much before the Italo-Celtic split.  

He mentions the "early Bronze Age", as I recall, but never tacks a date onto it. As far as I can tell, the zoned-Beaker Folk were arriving in Britain in the 3rd millennium BC.

I think the movement of the early Greeks into Greece was a bit later than that, and I'm not sure about the Latins.
« Last Edit: March 29, 2009, 01:53:17 PM by rms2 » Logged

Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #74 on: March 29, 2009, 08:30:52 PM »

....
I think the movement of the early Greeks into Greece was a bit later than that, and I'm not sure about the Latins.
I'm not really clear on the Hittite and Greek IE branches.  The Hittites for sure, David Anthony says, broke off early.  I think the reasoning is that they didn't have the word for "wheel" (and a couple others) like the other IE languages.  It seems like the Greeks (Mycanaens) broke away early, but lingered in the Balkans and the Black Sea area (Homer tradition) before moving down the Peloponnese peninsula to integrate with and then overtake the non-IE Minoans.
« Last Edit: March 29, 2009, 08:33:32 PM by Mike » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


SEO light theme by © Mustang forums. Powered by SMF 1.1.13 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines LLC

Page created in 0.116 seconds with 19 queries.