World Families Forums - Cimmerians and R1b1b2+

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
September 21, 2014, 03:27:21 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)
| | |-+  Cimmerians and R1b1b2+
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Cimmerians and R1b1b2+  (Read 3789 times)
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« on: December 05, 2010, 08:07:22 AM »

Once again I repost here a post from my blog, for those of you who have shaken the dust of DNA Forums from your feet.

A question that comes up often is whether Y-DNA Haplogroup R1b1b2 and its subclades really spread into Europe from the Pontic steppe with the Indo-Europeans. Or did it spread earlier from Anatolia, with the first farmers? I now tackle this issue head on by explaining

    * the problems with the idea of a Neolithic spread
    * why we are unlikely to find early subclades of R1b1b2 on the Pontic steppe today


Since Peopling of Europe has been split into sections now, I wanted to make sure that each section could be read independently. So Indo-European genetics has had a new touch. You can go straight to Y-DNA Haplogroup R1b1b2 and get a summary of this issue:

Quote
Subsequent mutations further down the line produced two huge sub-clades with clusters of offspring mutations - the sign of a population in rapid growth and spread. So a more recent study of the haplogroup suggested that it spread into Europe with the first farmers from Anatolia. There are several problems with that idea. We now know from a study of the route of Neolithic cultivars that farming spread into Europe from the Levant, not Anatolia. Its island-hopping progress to Greece alone took several thousand years. Overall from Cyprus (8,500 BC) to Scotland (4,000 BC) and Scandinavia (3,500 BC) farming took 5,000 years to spread over Europe. That scarcely matches the great burst of U106 and P312 around 3,000 BC. Furthermore carriers of R1b1b2+ share with carriers of R1a1a a high level of lactose tolerance, which appears to have arisen with dairy farming, rather than in the earliest farmers. In fact the type common in Europe most probably arose on the Pontic-Caspian steppe. ...

The counter-argument has always been that we don't find early subclades of R1b1b2 in Ukraine today. I wouldn't expect them. The descendants of the peoples round about the Sea of Azov that I conjecture carried R1b1b2+ were the Cimmerians, who were forced off the steppe round about 700 BC. A map and evidence can now be found in Iron Age: Cimmerians and steel. If I am right, we should find their descendants particularly around the upper reaches of the Danube.
« Last Edit: December 05, 2010, 08:14:03 AM by Jean M » Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #1 on: December 05, 2010, 08:13:38 AM »

Also note at the top of the new page on Iron Age Cimmerians and Celts the similarity between the spread of the Urnfield Culture and that of U152.

Also on the new Bell Beaker to Celts and Italics page are new maps and a filling out of the text to clarify the sequence of events as I currently see it.   

Logged
Maliclavelli
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2151


« Reply #2 on: December 05, 2010, 10:39:53 AM »

1)   Now nobody speaks more of R-U152 as Celt: you speaks of Italic-Celt and Celts migrated to Italy in the first Millennium BC were some coming back.
2)   I have always said that the most ancient documented forms of Celt language is found in Italy: Lepontian and more ancient the language of the Stele of Novilara.
3)   Ligurians were an ancient an independent branch of Indo-European.
4)   Recent studies of Dienekes Pontikos have demonstrated that at autosomic level Tuscans, North Italians and Spaniards are the same thing: 2 French out of 28 are on the same cluster and demonstrate the more than four millions of French of Italian extraction and recognizable among the other Celt-Germanic French. Then Spaniards, as Italic-Celts, came from Italy and not the contrary.
5)   Your Cimmerians are too recent for saying something interesting about our question.
6)   An origin from East of the Italic-Celts as R-U152 lacks the previous clades (R-L11+, R-51+, R-L23+/L150-) present in Italy but not elsewhere.
7)   Next years the YDNA of Oetzi, the Italian man of Similaun, from the Remedello culture, more ancient of your 2900BC as the most ancient Bell Beaker culture found in Italy (and Portugal), being of 3300BC, will be able to say something interesting. Thus far he was mtDNA K1o, close to my K1a1b1 (9932A) typically Italian.
Logged

Maliclavelli


YDNA: R-S12460


MtDNA: K1a1b1e

alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #3 on: December 05, 2010, 11:57:53 AM »

I know Jean is talking about genes but I think it is worth also mentioning that one issue that has been brought up in the past regarding the  Urnfield= Celtic migration idea (among many other things) is that in Iberia and Italy the urnfield distribution seems to actually specifically correspond to non-Celtic areas and indeed non-Indo-European areas of those countries i.e. the urnfields of Iberia and Italy seem to correlate with the Iberian and Etruscan areas.  That is pretty remarkable coincidence if that is all it is.  Some would see the  Raetian Alpine peoples and even the Basques as potentially peripherally related in some way to this too.   Even in France you could say that much of the Urnfield areas bypassed a lot of Celtic Gaul and fell into the later Iberian (bordering Aquitanian) area of SW France and the Belgic areas of NE France.  So to me Urnfield certainly has a poor correspondence with the most clear-cut areas associated with the early Celts when looked at in detail.  Yes, it overlaps partly with the somewhat ethnically hazy eastern edge of the Celtic Gaulish lands but it is a very poor match overall.   If you take a slighly Cunliffe-esque approach you could argue that Urnfielders were the opposition to the Celtic areas of much of Gallia Celtica, Celtic Iberia and the isles.  However, in reality I would think that its simply a case where archaeological culture and language/ethnic groupings dont have a simple match.
« Last Edit: December 05, 2010, 12:25:15 PM by alan trowel hands. » Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #4 on: December 05, 2010, 12:29:39 PM »

6)   An origin from East of the Italic-Celts as R-U152 lacks the previous clades (R-L11+, R-51+, R-L23+/L150-) present in Italy but not elsewhere.

I am not claiming that R-U152 came from the East and I don't know of anyone else who is. The distribution of R-U152 looks typical of the type one expects in a more or less stable population. It is densest at the core in the Alps, and expands out from there in a very rough circle. So we can guess that the origin point was near the dense centre of the distribution - in the Alps. (The initial distribution could have happened with Urnfield, with later waves moving north with Hallstatt and La Tene.)

Naturally U152 had to arise in a P312 man. P312 shows a completely different type of distribution - the wave - densest where it hits a natural barrier - the Atlantic. That means that P312 occurred at the head of a migration. So its origin point can be calculated as close to the eastern end of its present distribution, perhaps in  the Lower Danube Basin.

http://www.buildinghistory.org/distantpast/images/SpecR1b.jpg

Earlier subclades of R1b are not exclusive to Italy. As I explained above, I don't expect to find them in Ukraine, but they are likely to be dotted about where we find Cimmerian items, which includes Northern Italy, if you look at the map:
http://www.buildinghistory.org/distantpast/images/Cimmerians.jpg

« Last Edit: December 05, 2010, 12:41:54 PM by Jean M » Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #5 on: December 05, 2010, 12:37:56 PM »

7)   Next years the YDNA of Oetzi, the Italian man of Similaun, from the Remedello culture, more ancient of your 2900BC as the most ancient Bell Beaker culture found in Italy (and Portugal), being of 3300BC, will be able to say something interesting. Thus far he was mtDNA K1o, close to my K1a1b1 (9932A) typically Italian.

I mention Oetzi and his mtDNA in The Copper Age in Europe.  The date I have for him is 3,200 B.C. I know that his Y-DNA is due to be announced next year (along with his whole genome) and expect it to be P312. He seems just a little too old for U152.   
Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #6 on: December 05, 2010, 12:48:17 PM »

I know Jean is talking about genes but I think it is worth also mentioning that one issue that has been brought up in the past regarding the  Urnfield= Celtic migration idea .... is that in Iberia and Italy the urnfield distribution seems to actually specifically correspond to non-Celtic areas and indeed non-Indo-European areas of those countries i.e. the urnfields of Iberia and Italy seem to correlate with the Iberian and Etruscan areas.  

The puzzle is resolved if one accepts that the Etruscans and Iberians arrived after Urnfield (1300 BC). I tackle that point too in a new section on the Iberians, which concludes:

Quote
Javier Veleza points to the homogeneity of Iberian c. 400 BC, when the first inscriptions occur. A language that had arrived in that whole territory with the Urnfield Culture would have had centuries in which to diverge into dialects. A more plausible alternative is that Iberian had spread later - south and along the coast from a homeland in North Catalonia bordering Aquitanian.

I had already covered the new thinking on the Etruscans:

Quote
The real surprise comes in the date of their advent. Archaeology and DNA studies of Tuscan cattle breeds suggests that they arrived in Italy around 1,200 BC, centuries after the Indo-Europeans.

Not that I'm saying that Urnfield = Celts. It covered only part of the Celtic language distribution, which I argue began earlier, with the "Stelae People" and Bell Beaker.
« Last Edit: December 05, 2010, 01:02:32 PM by Jean M » Logged
vineviz
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 191


« Reply #7 on: December 05, 2010, 12:51:31 PM »

I mention Oetzi and his mtDNA in The Copper Age in Europe.  The date I have for him is 3,200 B.C. I know that his Y-DNA is due to be announced next year (along with his whole genome) and expect it to be P312. He seems just a little too old for U152.   

We would be quite lucky, I think, if his sequence was complete enough to give us a clean read on both P312 and U152.  We can hope, but I would be surprised if the DNA is that robust.

Even if the sequencing is quite good, I'd be shocked if Oetzi is R1b1b2 at all.  He died within a 1,000 years of the MRCA for all of R1b1b2, so the odds are that R1b1b2 was still a minority haplogroup in Europe at that time:  quite possibly it wasn't present at all in Europe then.  I'd bet on F, I, or G before I'd bet on R.

VV
Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #8 on: December 05, 2010, 12:56:03 PM »

Even if the sequencing is quite good, I'd be shocked if Oetzi is R1b1b2 at all.  He died within a 1,000 years of the MRCA for all of R1b1b2, so the odds are that R1b1b2 was still a minority haplogroup in Europe at that time:  quite possibly it wasn't present at all in Europe then.  I'd bet on F, I, or G before I'd bet on R.

VV

I'm not rash enough to gamble with you Vince. :) But my feeling is that R1b1b2+ spread with copper, and  Oetzi was carrying a copper axe, of Remedello manufacture, from the ores of Tuscany. The copper-workers had arrived.
Logged
Maliclavelli
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2151


« Reply #9 on: December 05, 2010, 01:05:24 PM »

Jean writes: "The puzzle is resolved if one accepts that the Etruscans and Iberians arrived after Urnfield (1300 BC)".

The Etruscan problem is always open, and let me say this, being I an Etruscan R1b1b2a (S136+) and K1a1b1 (9932A).
A few days ago Dienekes Pontikos has demonstrated that at autosomal level Tuscans are the same that Northern Italians and Spaniards, and 2 French out of 28 (on average the more than 4 millions French of Italian extraction).
It isn't said that, even though Etruscans were an upper class who dominated previous Osco-Umbrian people, have come from Aegean Sea. It could be true also the contrary: that Lemnians were from Italy. Otherwise we can't explain why Etruscan language is related, and very much differentiated, to Rhaetian and Camun.
Logged

Maliclavelli


YDNA: R-S12460


MtDNA: K1a1b1e

Maliclavelli
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2151


« Reply #10 on: December 05, 2010, 01:09:36 PM »

Seen that Vizachero is on line, I can say that I have seen only now these two SNPs (L388 and L389). One of the owner is Mainenti from Italy (R1b1b1). The other is a Jew (R1b1): the same question of the origin of Jews. You know which is my thought, and the recent paper on BRCA1 mutation seems to give reason to me.
« Last Edit: December 05, 2010, 03:57:57 PM by Maliclavelli » Logged

Maliclavelli


YDNA: R-S12460


MtDNA: K1a1b1e

vineviz
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 191


« Reply #11 on: December 05, 2010, 03:37:00 PM »

Seen that Vizachero is in line, I can say that I have seen only now these two SNPs (L388 and L389). One of the owner is Mainenti from Italy (R1b1b1). The other is a Jew (R1b1): the same question of the origin of Jews. You know which is my thought, and the recent paper on BRCA1 mutation seem to give reason to me.

Actually, L388 and L389 are derived (positive) in all R1b1b men as well as - and this is what is news - some V88- P297- men.  These SNPs are not limited to the particular men mentioned.
Logged
MHammers
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 347


« Reply #12 on: December 05, 2010, 04:00:10 PM »

I think this study provides a clue as to the relative lack of R1b1b2 in the steppe areas of Ukraine and Russia.
http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v18/n4/abs/ejhg2009194a.html

This is an R1a study but it shows the most common subclade as R1a1a* or M17 as a relative late-comer to Russia and Ukraine.  Then there is a second wave of R1a1a7 coming later from Poland or nearby, perhaps with Slavic people.  On table S4 in the supplemental, it shows higher coalescence ages everywhere else with hot spots in South Asia, Caucasus, Poland, and Slovakia.  They used the Zhiv. rate which may be about 3 times older, but if you divide by 3 you get times more in line with the spread of IE languages.

This doesn't mean there wasn't any R1a1a* in the PIE areas of the southern steppe at that time.  It would be foolish to think that.  However, when I look at the older hot spots of Poland/Slovakia (Corded-ware?) and South Asia (Andronovo/Indo-Iranian/Indo-Aryan?) it suggests forest and forest-steppe dwellers and later Satem speakers.  I don't think R1a1a* was born in South Asia despite the highest ages, but born from an R1a1 probably in the northern forest areas, hence the connection with older ages in Poland/Slovakia.  

In a very broad sense....
R1-South or Central Asia
R1a-Central Asia
R1a1-Southern Urals (Romansk-Ilmursin and Yangelskaya cultures)
later R1a1 -westward movement with Comb-ceramic and finally with Corded-ware
R1a1a- Corded-ware, forest and forest-steppe cultures, eastern Yamnaya, Andronovo then Indo-Iranians/Indo-Aryans
later R1a1a- Srubna culture, Scythians
R1a1a7-Lusatian culture? and early Slavic cultures

Back to R1b, L23 is found today in eastern non-steppe areas such as the Caucasus and Urals.  I think these could have been two source areas for R1b to emerge into a relatively R1a-less steppe at the time of the development of PIE.  PIE has connections with both the Caucasian and Uralic languages though strongest with Uralic per David Anthony.  So, as the above study shows R1a1a arrived later in Ukraine relative to other areas, which means R1b could have been there before R1a forest and forest-steppe dwellers moved south.  The R1b (M269 and L23) in the mountains there today could mostly be descendants of those who stayed behind, but did not integrate much into these intrusive R1a dominated groups.
« Last Edit: December 05, 2010, 04:06:36 PM by MHammers » Logged

Ydna: R1b-Z253**


Mtdna: T

Maliclavelli
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2151


« Reply #13 on: December 05, 2010, 04:06:10 PM »

We have discussed another time about a paper in which SNPs had a strange behaviour. The same could be L150. In the mtDNA we have homoplasy, but here? We cannot  always think to a recombinant region… but I haven’t at hands the matter now.
Logged

Maliclavelli


YDNA: R-S12460


MtDNA: K1a1b1e

Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #14 on: December 05, 2010, 06:51:07 PM »

@ MHammers I was concentrating on the R1b side here, as this forum is for R1b1b2.

Just briefly - the R1a1a in present steppe populations is liable to be mainly if not entirely Slavic. The problem is that the Scythians driving away the Cimmerians is just the start of a series of complete population replacements. Peoples from the east displaced the Scythians and so on. The last such event was the Russians pushing the easterners back - right into Siberia.

I know that I sound like a broken record, but we need aDNA. And we have it for Andronovo. We know where we are with the Scythians. There is no problem with R1a1a. We just have some creative rewriting going on by a few people online with a particular story in mind that they prefer to the scholarly consensus.

The Slavs did not come out of Poland. The theory of a Polish homeland is no longer supported by Polish archaeologists. See Michał Parczewski, Remarks on the discussion of Polish archaeologists on the ethnogenesis of Slavs.

There are now two chief competing theories:

1) Florin Curtin (a Romanian archaeologist) argues for a Slavic homeland between the Carpathians and the Danube (Donau). A minority view.
2) A Slavic homeland between the rivers Pripet, Bug, Dniester and Dniepr is widely accepted. See Zbigniew Gołąb, The Origins of the Slavs. A Linguist's View (Slavica, 1992).

Or see my page on the Slavs for a summary.
« Last Edit: December 05, 2010, 06:59:24 PM by Jean M » Logged
MHammers
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 347


« Reply #15 on: December 05, 2010, 07:41:09 PM »

@ MHammers I was concentrating on the R1b side here, as this forum is for R1b1b2.

Just briefly - the R1a1a in present steppe populations is liable to be mainly if not entirely Slavic. The problem is that the Scythians driving away the Cimmerians is just the start of a series of complete population replacements. Peoples from the east displaced the Scythians and so on. The last such event was the Russians pushing the easterners back - right into Siberia.

I know that I sound like a broken record, but we need aDNA. And we have it for Andronovo. We know where we are with the Scythians. There is no problem with R1a1a. We just have some creative rewriting going on by a few people online with a particular story in mind that they prefer to the scholarly consensus.

The Slavs did not come out of Poland. The theory of a Polish homeland is no longer supported by Polish archaeologists. See Michał Parczewski, Remarks on the discussion of Polish archaeologists on the ethnogenesis of Slavs.

There are now two chief competing theories:

1) Florin Curtin (a Romanian archaeologist) argues for a Slavic homeland between the Carpathians and the Danube (Donau). A minority view.
2) A Slavic homeland between the rivers Pripet, Bug, Dniester and Dniepr is widely accepted. See Zbigniew Gołąb, The Origins of the Slavs. A Linguist's View (Slavica, 1992).
Or see my page on the Slavs for a summary.

I agree about the aDNA.  However, it is important to look at other hg's in relation to where R1b1b2 is or isn't present.  I've looked at as much R1b as I can find and still the only near- certainty is that it entered Europe from somewhere east or southeast.  When, where, and how exactly are another matter.  

I said R1a1a7 or M458 arose in Poland or somewhere close, not the Slavic language itself. This was meant to imply M458 was spread with Slavic migrations in the 5th-7th centuries.  I have no argument with the Proto-slavic homeland in the Pripet marshes.

Who do you think were the cultural antecedents of the Cimmerians?  Or what put them on a different path than the Scythians if they were both IE speakers?
« Last Edit: December 05, 2010, 10:05:58 PM by MHammers » Logged

Ydna: R1b-Z253**


Mtdna: T

alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #16 on: December 05, 2010, 08:21:54 PM »

I am not convinced of the arguements explaining away the close correspondence of Unrfields in Italy and Spain/SW France with non-Indo-European groups.  There is enough wriggle room to argue either way but it seems very counter-intuitive. There is an overlap but overall its the strong oppositeness of Urnfield culture and the best attested areas of early Celtic speaking that really jumps out.  

I must say I never thought I would say it but I wonder is there is something to Cunliffe's model. I think in some presentations of the model it has been over-Atlanticised i.e. it has tried to go for a dichotomy between the extreme Atlantic fringe on the one hand and central Europe on the other and somehow sort of ignored the presence of much of France in between.  There has also been way too much significance read into the P-Q division which after all may just be a late dialect fashion caused by Etruscan influence in the Iron Age.  However, a model more centred on Atlantic France with the isles and Iberia at its opposite extremes may have something in it.  I have always considered DIRECT Irish-Iberian links far too weakly attested at any period to build a model on. However, I am much more convinced that Ireland had sustained contact with Britain and Atlantic France from the beaker period to the late Bronze Age and that the latter in turn had links with Atlantic Iberia. Certainly, I have long felt that the spread of Celtic or more probably undifferentiated centum Indo-European in western Europe was achieved long before the urnfield/Hallstatt/La Tene etc periods.  These cultures simply are not common denominators across the Celtic speaking areas.  The model using them has simply never stacked up.  The beaker period as far as I can see is that last strong common denominator culture that straddled all the Celtic (and Italic and indeed German - pretty well all the Centum languages) areas.  
« Last Edit: December 05, 2010, 08:27:10 PM by alan trowel hands. » Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #17 on: December 05, 2010, 08:38:16 PM »

The only thing I would probably give the later cultures like Hallstatt D/early La Tene credit for is that they and their influence were probably responsible for the spread of the P-form from the Alpine area through Gaul and to Britain through some sort of spread among the interacting elites of that period.   The lack of taking up of this spreading dialect change in Ireland and in Iberia too is probably reflected materially by the lack of Hallstatt D and early La Tene material in those areas which in turn indicates a period of isolation from their peers for a century or two in at this time.
Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #18 on: December 05, 2010, 08:48:26 PM »

The Cimmerians were the descendants of the stay-at-homes - the IE people who stayed on the Pontic steppe through thick and thin, including climate change, until the Scythians forced them to wander.

Their cultural antecedents have an interesting twist. Or at least so argues Jan Bouzek. Archaeologists treat the Chernogorovka (c. 900 BC) and Novocherkassk (c. 800 BC) cultures as Cimmerian. Bouzek argues that their origins lie not just in the local steppe Srubna  culture, but also the Koban culture of the Caucasus. (There was a recent discovery of Koban culture walled settlements in the mountains.) Thirdly he notes eastern influences from the Scythians.

Their life-style was similar to that of the Scythians, so I wouldn't say that they were on a different path. It was a tussle over territory.
Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #19 on: December 05, 2010, 09:06:46 PM »

There is an overlap but overall its the strong oppositeness of Urnfield culture and the best attested areas of early Celtic speaking that really jumps out.  

Scarcely. Urnfield seems to have spread from a core area in Central Europe that is later associated with the Celts. It covers an area that was Celtic-speaking prior to the push southwards of the Germani much later on, apart from the two areas that you indicated, where we know of non-IE languages.

It was natural to assume that non-IE languages pre-dated the arrival of IE languages. I made that assumption myself when I started writing P of E. I have been surprised again and again, as I researched into it, to find out how wrong I was.:) 

But I can assure you that none of the studies I cite on the Etruscans, or the linguist I cited on the Iberians, have shown the smallest interest in Urnfield. They don't mention it. They are not concerned with trying to "explain away" evidence contrary to some view of Urnfield.
Logged
intrestedinhistory
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


« Reply #20 on: May 26, 2012, 11:27:10 AM »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cimmerians

The wikipedia page says they settled in Armenia, Assyria and Iran. Do we see a non West Asian layer of R1b in Iran? Also any clue as to where Alans were from? I recall reading of battles between Alans and Cimmerians. But I have read Alans were from Kazakhstan.

I recall NW iranians had more of the Northern component then NE iranians who are closer to central Asia. This cimmerian migration would explain that.
« Last Edit: May 26, 2012, 11:32:44 AM by intrestedinhistory » Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #21 on: May 26, 2012, 12:29:07 PM »

Golly! This old thread pops up again. So we can see that Vince was right and I was wrong about Otzi. :)

The route of the fleeing Cimmerians that we know most about was into Anatolia, since it was described by Herodotus and they are mentioned there in a few other written sources. Archaeology shows that the Cimmerians also moved up the Danube into the Carpathian Basin in the 9th and 8th centuries BC. See Cambridge Ancient History, vol. 3, part 2 (1991), pp. 555-60 for a fuller coverage of the sources.
Logged
intrestedinhistory
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


« Reply #22 on: May 26, 2012, 12:35:23 PM »

Golly! This old thread pops up again. So we can see that Vince was right and I was wrong about Otzi. :)

The route of the fleeing Cimmerians that we know most about was into Anatolia, since it was described by Herodotus and they are mentioned there in a few other written sources. Archaeology shows that the Cimmerians also moved up the Danube into the Carpathian Basin in the 9th and 8th centuries BC. See Cambridge Ancient History, vol. 3, part 2 (1991), pp. 555-60 for a fuller coverage of the sources.

Interesting. I was just wondering if a different sort of R1b can be found in Anatolia, NW Iran and Armenia that correlates with this movement. i read somewhere by a post by DMXX that they settled in Iran and Armenia as well. The language of these people is still in doubt I see.
Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #23 on: May 26, 2012, 01:33:11 PM »

The language of these people is still in doubt I see.

Unless a language is actually written down, there will always be people who want to argue about it.
Logged
Maliclavelli
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2151


« Reply #24 on: May 26, 2012, 01:48:53 PM »

Interesting. I was just wondering if a different sort of R1b can be found in Anatolia, NW Iran and Armenia that correlates with this movement. I read somewhere by a post by DMXX that they settled in Iran and Armenia as well. The language of these people is still in doubt I see.

"Je suis un autre" (Arthur Rimbaud)
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 0.15 seconds with 17 queries.