World Families Forums - Croatian R-L21*!

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
July 11, 2014, 08:46:28 AM
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)
| | |-+  Croatian R-L21*!
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Croatian R-L21*!  (Read 2492 times)
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« on: April 09, 2009, 07:27:22 PM »

Okay, so apparently there is at least one Croatian R-L21*. I found that out while perusing some "My Matches" stuff in the R-L21 Plus Project.

I cannot find him in Ysearch, so I will start hunting in the various dna projects.

But I sent FTDNA an email asking them to invite him to join the R-L21 Plus Project.

That is all I know right now, but I'll keep you posted.

Exciting stuff!
Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #1 on: April 10, 2009, 06:34:00 AM »

I did find one potential Croatian candidate by searching by haplogroup R1b1b2 and restricting the search to Eastern Europe: W63WR. He may not be our L21+ guy, but he could be. Anyway, I sent him an email.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2009, 06:34:18 AM by rms2 » Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #2 on: April 16, 2009, 07:46:52 AM »

Hooray! I got an email from our Croatian R-L21*! See YSearch Z5AA3 (his entry has been updated to R1b1b2a1b5). The ancestral surname is Loncaric, and his most distant ancestor came from Stupnik, near Zagreb, in  northern Croatia. This gentleman confirmed to me that he is very sure of his Croatian ancestry and his ancestor. Outstanding!

I have asked him to join the R-L21 Plus Project. I hope he will.
Logged

Maliclavelli
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2146


« Reply #3 on: April 16, 2009, 09:07:47 AM »

Loncharich is a town at a few Kms from the Adriatic shore and after having been part of the Italian Refugium of the Epigravettian Time, after having had the population who lived on the North Adriatic not yet submerged, after more than 500 years of Roman Empire and after 1000 years of Venetian Republic, I think we need more data for putting this haplotype in an (ancient) Ethnic origin.
Logged

Maliclavelli


YDNA: R-S12460


MtDNA: K1a1b1e

Maliclavelli
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2146


« Reply #4 on: April 16, 2009, 09:22:01 AM »

Anyway the closest to Loncharich on Ysearch, as for the most ancient Italians, are exclusively men of the British Isles with "Celtic" surnames. I think that this, at this point, isn't a case but a proof.
Logged

Maliclavelli


YDNA: R-S12460


MtDNA: K1a1b1e

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #5 on: April 16, 2009, 10:24:19 AM »

Anyway the closest to Loncharich on Ysearch, as for the most ancient Italians, are exclusively men of the British Isles with "Celtic" surnames. I think that this, at this point, isn't a case but a proof.

I would agree that the shared origin is Celtic but not British, since what you say is true, but none of his British Isles neighbors is really close in a genealogical sense.

Northern Croatia was home to the Celtic tribe (or confederation) the Scordisci in ancient times. Perhaps some more R-L21* will show up among the Croatians.

http://histoiremesure.revues.org/docannexe/image/880/img-1.jpg
« Last Edit: April 16, 2009, 10:44:01 AM by rms2 » Logged

Maliclavelli
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2146


« Reply #6 on: April 16, 2009, 11:20:22 AM »

But if the origin of Loncharich family is linked with the Loncharich town, it has nothing to do with the Scordisci, who inhabited between the to-day Serbia and Rumania. They were rather linked with Dalmatia, probably Illyrian name (Dele-mat "sheeps' mountain", explained also by modern Albanian), but from those times many things can have been changed, for this I think we need more data.
But what was Celtic? I do mean which haplogroup? Faux thought to R-U152, and now Rokus01 thinks, like my friend Gioiello, it is above all Italian. Must we think to R-L21? But it lacks in many Celtic regions. Probably we must think to an ancient expansion and superimposition of ancient Indo-European populations and not only to the last one. Linguists know well that there was in Europe an ancient Indo-European stratum, that that Krahe studied.
Logged

Maliclavelli


YDNA: R-S12460


MtDNA: K1a1b1e

Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #7 on: April 16, 2009, 11:42:18 AM »

....
But what was Celtic? I do mean which haplogroup? Faux thought to R-U152, and now Rokus01 thinks, like my friend Gioiello, it is above all Italian.
Ancient Celts were probably not pure anything, although they were predominantly apparently R-P312 of various strands, possibly including R-U152.  Italic and Celtic folks were at least lingustically linked, so they are possibly genetically linked as well... meaning there might be R-U152 in both Italic and Celtic folks.
Quote from: Maliclavelli
Must we think to R-L21? But it lacks in many Celtic regions.
What regions are you talking about?  Please try to be more specific.
Quote from: Maliclavelli
Probably we must think to an ancient expansion and superimposition of ancient Indo-European populations and not only to the last one. Linguists know well that there was in Europe an ancient Indo-European stratum, that that Krahe studied.
How ancient (what age) are you purporting IE to be in Western Europe?  I doubt if it was Neolithic or prior.
Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>L705.2
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #8 on: April 16, 2009, 12:16:10 PM »

Linguists know well that there was in Europe an ancient Indo-European stratum, that that Krahe studied.

Actually very few linguists think so. Almost none, in fact. The Palaeolithic  Continuity Theory has failed to gain supporters. Within Indo-European studies, the consensus for many years has been that Proto-Indo-European arose after farming and the invention of the wheel (c. 3,500 BC), since agricultural words and a word for the wheel appear in common PIE vocabulary.   
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #9 on: April 16, 2009, 01:22:39 PM »

But if the origin of Loncharich family is linked with the Loncharich town, it has nothing to do with the Scordisci, who inhabited between the to-day Serbia and Rumania. They were rather linked with Dalmatia, probably Illyrian name (Dele-mat "sheeps' mountain", explained also by modern Albanian), but from those times many things can have been changed, for this I think we need more data.
But what was Celtic? I do mean which haplogroup? Faux thought to R-U152, and now Rokus01 thinks, like my friend Gioiello, it is above all Italian. Must we think to R-L21? But it lacks in many Celtic regions. Probably we must think to an ancient expansion and superimposition of ancient Indo-European populations and not only to the last one. Linguists know well that there was in Europe an ancient Indo-European stratum, that that Krahe studied.

I couldn't find a town of Loncharich in Croatia, though I looked. Perhaps you have a link? According to the Loncharich DNA Project site, the name is occupational.

I wouldn't necessarily limit L21 to the Celts, but I do think there is a strong connection. And the Scordisci were in northern Croatia.

Many people are making the mistake of comparing L21, an SNP just discovered, for all practical purposes, in October of 2008, to subclades for which testing has been going on for years: like U152, which has been tested for since 2005.

I disagree very strongly with the idea that R1b1b2 was even in existence during the last Ice Age, so the idea that it could have spent it in Italy is a non-starter for me.
« Last Edit: April 16, 2009, 01:30:23 PM by rms2 » Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #10 on: April 16, 2009, 01:36:24 PM »

Okay, I did find Loncaric, Croatia here:

http://itouchmap.com/?c=hr&UF=329953&UN=409822&DG=HLL
Logged

Maliclavelli
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2146


« Reply #11 on: April 16, 2009, 06:01:19 PM »

1)   LGM was 18,000 YBP. I supposed the presence of R1b1b2/L23- in Italy during the Younger Dryas, arrived from East, I think for many reasons from Ural and not from South/West Asia like Pinzochero and others. I have never spoken of LGM or immediately after it.
2)   The presence of R/L23-, R/L23+ etc. is massive on Italy,  and Middle East,  Asia Minor etc. can have had them from Italy and not the contrary.
3)   I don’t understand why Pinzochero says that  British Isles haven’t R/L23-, having we Crenson, thought a Jew by “words blown in the wind”. De facto British Isles have every haplogroup Italy has, I think as migrated from Italy. My friend Gioiello (R/L23+) finds some of his closest matches in the most ancient stratum of British Isles ( Celtic surnames) like Loncharich for his R/L21+ and many other haplogroups. Then I think that there has been a continuous migration from South Europe (Italy) to British Isles and the Celtic one has been one of the last.
4)   When I spoke of ancient linguistic strata of the Indo-European I didn’t refer to Mario Alinei’s theory but to the ancient studies of Krahe on European rivers name.
5)   The paper of Nakhleh et alii puts the separation between Hittite and the other IE languages 6,000 YBP. I suppose a previous phase with IE/Rhaetic/Etruscan more ancient at least of 3/4000 years. I put the separation from Ugro-Finnic at least 10,000YBP. It is clear that this ancient phase has developed in Europe: if you don’t like Italy, I think you must think to a near region: Balkans or Central Europe, but if we go back to the Younger Dryas I think the unique possible region has been that of North Italy South of Alps, the Rhaetic or Camunian  one. This region has been inhabited at least from 8,000 years. Oetzi (5,300 YBP) came from Italy South of the Alps and I’d like a DNA exam and I don’t understand why Paabo is mapping Neanderthal (about 28,000YBP) and nobody is able to map a man, well preserved, of only 5,000.
Logged

Maliclavelli


YDNA: R-S12460


MtDNA: K1a1b1e

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #12 on: April 16, 2009, 07:39:55 PM »

The Younger Dryas was too long ago. No R1b1b2 around that far back.
Logged

Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #13 on: April 16, 2009, 10:57:25 PM »

....5)   The paper of Nakhleh et alii puts the separation between Hittite and the other IE languages 6,000 YBP. I suppose a previous phase with IE/Rhaetic/Etruscan more ancient at least of 3/4000 years. I put the separation from Ugro-Finnic at least 10,000YBP. It is clear that this ancient phase has developed in Europe:.....
Why?  Why do you assume that IE developed in Europe?   Why do you suppose IE/Rhaetic/Estruscan being relate 3-4000 years before the Hittite branch of IE?  Why not 10 or 20000 years before?
Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>L705.2
Maliclavelli
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2146


« Reply #14 on: April 17, 2009, 01:43:54 AM »


[/quote]
Why?  Why do you assume that IE developed in Europe?   Why do you suppose IE/Rhaetic/Estruscan being relate 3-4000 years before the Hittite branch of IE?  Why not 10 or 20000 years before?
[/quote]
Because the best recent work I know on Etruscan is that of Woudhuizen (The ethnicity of the Sea peoples), which explains Etruscan by the late Hittite (Luvian etc.). If this is true, we can think that this is the unique explication, but also to a parallel evolution. Anyway this solution wouldn't explain Rhaetic, which is so different from Etruscan that nobody thinks it is due to Etruscan of the Po Valley refugee there after the Celtic invasion. I can hypothesize that Rhaetic and Etruscan are the remnants of an ancient stratum. I know that this is an hypothesis that should be demonstrated. But where lacks linguistics Genetic aids. "Tout se tient" French say.
Logged

Maliclavelli


YDNA: R-S12460


MtDNA: K1a1b1e

Jafety R1b-U152
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 82


« Reply #15 on: April 17, 2009, 04:17:27 AM »

Nice and interesting conversation.

First of all, I want to add that Proto-IE is put into the Early Bronze Age (4000-3500 BC) by the most linguists, as Jean noted. I think this conclusion drawn from vocabulary research etc. is safer than any MRCA estimate available.
Thus it is reasonable to accept an Early Bronze Age date for PIE, not saying anything about Hgs or homeland.

On linguistic basis, I always wonder why people use to connect Indo-European and Uralic. I think this comes from the acceptance of the Kurgan theory, while I think it is not justifyable. If we do not take into account that basically every language should be "anciently" related as everyone came from East Africa, I doubt there is any clue to connect PIE and Uralic. As a Uralic speaker (Hungarian) I can assure you that the structure of Uralic languages is so much different from IE that Uralic is much closer to Altaic, Korean, Japanese, Dravidian and even to Siberian and Native American languages than to IE. IE is indeed closer to Afro-Asiatic or Caucasian languages, for example (this is my basic argument for an Anatolian IE homeland instead of Steppe).

Of course you can ask why and how can I prove this?
1. Languages use to be more conservative in structure than in vocabulary. No matter how many words we borrowed from German, English, Latin, we are suffixing them the same way as native words. The sentence structure is also intact, even if I use only words of foreign origin. Uralic and the close languages to it are agglutinative while IE is more analytic, especially with propositions (we dont have them, but put suffixes to the end of the word).
2. The similarities between IE and Uralic can be a later areal feature, namely the Slavic and Indo-Iranian speakers living next to Uralics. In my opinion, satemization is in itself the result of Uralic substrate in the Slavic and Indo-Iranian languages (e.g. 100 = Finnish Sata, Hungarian Szaz [pron. Saz]). Note that it is historically known that the Moscow area was still Uralic-speaking in 1000 AD, and Uralic-type inhabitants even reached Poland in the prehistory.
3. IE structure is closer to Afro-Asiatic (prepositioning, for example) and Anthony's book even notes that PIE had three types of 'H' (h1,h2,h3) - laryngeals - as Arabic does. Some researchers even suggested that PIE had a Semitic superstrata.

I'm not an expert of Thyrrenean/Aegean/Etruscan languages but I doubt that their relationship to IE is widely accepted.

L23 may have arised in Italy, but I do not think R1b1b2 could. It is plausible to think that our R1b1b2 grandfather was borne in Anatolia and his descendants went with farming to Europe, e.g. the Cardium Pottery people to Italy and L23 arose there. But Cardium farmers could have also been a mix of L23- and L23+ men.
They could have been Danubian farmers with equal chance as well. Or both. We have to find out.
« Last Edit: April 17, 2009, 04:20:16 AM by Jafety R1b-U152 » Logged

Y-DNA: R1b1b2a1b4 (S28/U-152) L2 test pending
Earliest known paternal ancestor: Matthias Fejer, b. 1819, Jaszarokszallas, Jasz county, Central Hungary
MtDNA: U4 (Western Siberian Ugric)
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #16 on: April 17, 2009, 07:59:20 AM »

Our Croatian R-L21* has joined the R-L21 Plus Project.
Logged

Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #17 on: April 17, 2009, 08:53:44 AM »

Quote from: Mike
Why?  Why do you assume that IE developed in Europe?   Why do you suppose IE/Rhaetic/Estruscan being relate 3-4000 years before the Hittite branch of IE?  Why not 10 or 20000 years before?
Because the best recent work I know on Etruscan is that of Woudhuizen (The ethnicity of the Sea peoples), which explains Etruscan by the late Hittite (Luvian etc.). If this is true, we can think that this is the unique explication, but also to a parallel evolution. Anyway this solution wouldn't explain Rhaetic, which is so different from Etruscan that nobody thinks it is due to Etruscan of the Po Valley refugee there after the Celtic invasion. I can hypothesize that Rhaetic and Etruscan are the remnants of an ancient stratum. I know that this is an hypothesis that should be demonstrated. But where lacks linguistics Genetic aids. "Tout se tient" French say.
Everything fits with enough supposition.
« Last Edit: April 17, 2009, 08:55:18 AM by Mike » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>L705.2
Maliclavelli
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2146


« Reply #18 on: April 17, 2009, 09:25:24 AM »

Safety, Hungarian “Szaz” is clearly a loanword from Satem-IE: this is a very recent word. Also Finn “kuningas” has no value, being at the level of Germanic-IE. But I think you should read the papers of Kortlandt about the close relatedness between IE and UF, more than all other groups.
If you think it is important the structure of language more than vocabulary (many linguists to-day are thinking the contrary: see the “massive comparison”), perhaps you should know that languages change frequently their structure during the time: Sino-Tibetan wasn’t an isolate language, English is becoming one. Etruscan is a midway between agglutinative and inflected  languages, for this I think that it is a direct descendant of a previous phase of IE.
If “szaz” and “kuningas” are recent loanwords, probably Hungarian “vìz” is more ancient.         
I think you shouldn’t forget that I am a follower of the first great theoretician of the monogenesis of language, Alfredo Trombetti. In his map of the links among linguistic groups,  UF is the closest to IE.
“Certo è, a ogni modo, che parole arie passarono nell’Ugrofinnico ancora nel periodo dell’unità di questo, per es. *s’ata da Ario š’ata- cento” (A. Trombetti, Elementi di glottologia, Bologna 1923, p. 141).
“L’accusativo invece è comune all’Indoeuropeo e all’Uraloaltaico. Il suffisso nel singolare è: Indour. –m, Ugrofinnico –m” (p. 145).
“Il genitivo uraloaltaico in –n ha carattere aggettivale ed esprime possesso, per es. Finnico mā-n del paese (…) Cfr. Indoeuropeo mei-n-o ‘quello di me, il di me, mio’ da mei ‘di me’ con Mongolo mi-n-u ‘di me, mio’” (p. 145) etc. etc.
Logged

Maliclavelli


YDNA: R-S12460


MtDNA: K1a1b1e

Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #19 on: April 17, 2009, 09:49:05 AM »

.... Etruscan is a midway between agglutinative and inflected  languages, for this I think that it is a direct descendant of a previous phase of IE....
I think you shouldn’t forget that I am a follower of the first great theoretician of the monogenesis of language, Alfredo Trombetti. In his map of the links among linguistic groups,  UF is the closest to IE.
Has he or anyone tried to reconstruct a "Paleothic language"?  Do you have any links to a diagram of the branching structure from the proposed monogenesis theory?
Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>L705.2
Maliclavelli
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2146


« Reply #20 on: April 17, 2009, 10:15:10 AM »


Has he or anyone tried to reconstruct a "Paleothic language"?  Do you have any links to a diagram of the branching structure from the proposed monogenesis theory?

[/quote]
I have an attachment from the book of Trombetti, but I don't know how to send it to the forum. There is a link "Insert image" and then?
Logged

Maliclavelli


YDNA: R-S12460


MtDNA: K1a1b1e

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

Posts: 292


WWW
« Reply #21 on: April 17, 2009, 12:28:03 PM »

Insert an photo (image) You may display images (photos), as long as they are stored somewhere on the internet.  If you have photos you would like to display, but do not have them saved as a file on the internet, there are a number of websites that will do this for you.  Any easy way to do this is with Google Picasa, a free program that allows you to edit photos, organize albums, aznd upload to the web. Here’s how to do it:

Go to http://picasa.google.com and download Picasa to your computer.
Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #22 on: April 17, 2009, 07:04:42 PM »

Because the best recent work I know on Etruscan is that of Woudhuizen (The ethnicity of the Sea peoples), which explains Etruscan by the late Hittite (Luvian etc.).

This sounds similar, but not identical, to the paper by R.S.P. Beekes, The Origin of the Etruscans, Biblioteca Orientalis vol. 59 (2002), pp. 206–242 (click link for pdf), which is rather lengthy, in covering all the angles exhaustively.  In brief he feels that they were indeed from Lydia, as Herodotus said, but not the Lydia known later, which has confused matters. He thinks the Lydians lived originally further north, bordering the Sea of Marmara, and were the same as the Tyrsenoi  or Tyrrhenians.
Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #23 on: April 17, 2009, 07:18:49 PM »

On linguistic basis, I always wonder why people use to connect Indo-European and Uralic. I think this comes from the acceptance of the Kurgan theory,

No - the reasoning is purely linguistic, I think you will find.  Anthony covers the linguistics clearly in The Horse, The Wheel and Language (2007), pp.93-6. I understand that you might want to dismiss this evidence, since it doesn't at all suit your preferred PIE homeland, but evidence dismissed for no logical reason will always come back to bite you.
« Last Edit: April 17, 2009, 07:21:03 PM by Jean M » Logged
Maliclavelli
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2146


« Reply #24 on: April 18, 2009, 01:11:38 AM »

Because the best recent work I know on Etruscan is that of Woudhuizen (The ethnicity of the Sea peoples), which explains Etruscan by the late Hittite (Luvian etc.).

This sounds similar, but not identical, to the paper by R.S.P. Beekes, The Origin of the Etruscans, Biblioteca Orientalis vol. 59 (2002), pp. 206–242 (click link for pdf), which is rather lengthy, in covering all the angles exhaustively.  In brief he feels that they were indeed from Lydia, as Herodotus said, but not the Lydia known later, which has confused matters. He thinks the Lydians lived originally further north, bordering the Sea of Marmara, and were the same as the Tyrsenoi  or Tyrrhenians.

Many thanks, Jean. This afternoon, after working, I'll read the paper and try to post my attachment.
Logged

Maliclavelli


YDNA: R-S12460


MtDNA: K1a1b1e

Pages: [1] 2 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 0.169 seconds with 19 queries.