PDA

View Full Version : DF99 (P312>DF99)



Pages : 1 2 3 [4]

GoldenHind
02-13-2019, 09:16 PM
A new person joined the FTDNA DF99 Project today after testing DF99+ in the M343 R1b Backbone test. I haven't been in contact with him yet, but from his name (Hans) and the fact that he has an umlaut in his surname, I am assuming he is a German national. He indicates ancestry from Württemberg to the mid 17th century. It almost goes without saying that he has the characteristic 12 at DYS389-1.

GoldenHind
02-16-2019, 11:17 PM
A new person joined the FTDNA DF99 Project today after testing DF99+ in the M343 R1b Backbone test. I haven't been in contact with him yet, but from his name (Hans) and the fact that he has an umlaut in his surname, I am assuming he is a German national. He indicates ancestry from Württemberg to the mid 17th century. It almost goes without saying that he has the characteristic 12 at DYS389-1.

I have now been in touch with the person who manages this kit. The DF99 individual in question was born in the USA shortly after the arrival of his parents from Bavaria.

R. Walker
02-27-2019, 04:35 AM
A new DF99 in from the R1b M343 backbone test. His ancestry is from Lombardy in the far north of Italy. He has 111 markers, but no matches above the 25 marker level. He is in the P312 project, but has not yet joined the DF99 project. I will ask him to do so.

He has the P312 modal value of 13 at DYS389-1, rather than the 12 which characteristic of DF99. The other DF99 from Lombardy also has a 13 there as well. This is probably just a coincidence, but who knows?

EDIT: This person has now joined the DF99 Project. His ancestry is from Piedmont, not Lombardy.

Does this person match my brother "the Ligurian"? Our family from Liguria is very close to the Piedmont border.
thanks, R. Walker

GoldenHind
02-27-2019, 08:46 PM
Does this person match my brother "the Ligurian"? Our family from Liguria is very close to the Piedmont border.
thanks, R. Walker

No, although the person in question with ancestry from Piedmont has 111 markers, he doesn't have any matches above 25 markers, and your brother doesn't match him at all beyond both being DF99.

Your brother's closest matches to other project members, and they aren't that close (GD 12 to 13 at 67 markers), are to some members of a family with a German surname whose origin is unclear between Germany and Switzerland.

I do note your brother has a 12/12 marker match with someone who is only identified by initials but who has tested DF99+. This person tested with igenea, which is a genetic testing company located in Switzerland.

It is interesting that the person with ancestry from Piedmont you asked about and the German/Swiss family who are your brother's closest matches are both in the same DF99 subclade: DF99>BY3449 (BY3447-), as is another member of Italian origin, from Veneto. It wouldn't surprise me a bit if your brother would fall into that group as well, but it would require further testing to find out. I suspect we may be looking at a cluster here centered in Switzerland and northern Italy.

R. Walker
03-10-2019, 03:58 AM
No, although the person in question with ancestry from Piedmont has 111 markers, he doesn't have any matches above 25 markers, and your brother doesn't match him at all beyond both being DF99.

Your brother's closest matches to other project members, and they aren't that close (GD 12 to 13 at 67 markers), are to some members of a family with a German surname whose origin is unclear between Germany and Switzerland.

I do note your brother has a 12/12 marker match with someone who is only identified by initials but who has tested DF99+. This person tested with igenea, which is a genetic testing company located in Switzerland.

It is interesting that the person with ancestry from Piedmont you asked about and the German/Swiss family who are your brother's closest matches are both in the same DF99 subclade: DF99>BY3449 (BY3447-), as is another member of Italian origin, from Veneto. It wouldn't surprise me a bit if your brother would fall into that group as well, but it would require further testing to find out. I suspect we may be looking at a cluster here centered in Switzerland and northern Italy.

Thanks, Golden hind. Brother isn't all that interested. I have paid for some extra tests out of my pocket
but not sure if I can continue, especially with a big ticket test. Wish we could get a project done in that area of Nor Italy.

GoldenHind
03-10-2019, 06:58 PM
Thanks, Golden hind. Brother isn't all that interested. I have paid for some extra tests out of my pocket
but not sure if I can continue, especially with a big ticket test. Wish we could get a project done in that area of Nor Italy.

If you want to spend another $39 on him sometime, I would suggest a single SNP test for BY3449 to see if your brother is in this branch of DF99. No guarantees on the result.

GoldenHind
03-21-2019, 08:11 PM
There is a new DF99 result with an interesting background. He transferred his Geno 2 results to FTDNA and then ordered a 37 marker YDNA test. I spotted him when he joined the P312 Project, because FTDNA did not make a haplogroup assignment for him, even though he had tested P310+ positive in Geno 2. Geno 2 does not include testing for either P312 or DF99, and anyone who is P312>DF99 only gets a P310+ result in the Geno 2 test. I then looked at his STR markers and saw he had the characteristic 12 at DYS389-1. I contacted him and suggested he order a DF99 test from FTDNA, and he just received a positive result. There is more to this which I have detailed on another thread on this forum about inaccurate and unreliable results from the Geno 2 test.

He has a surname which appears to possibly be a shortened version of a Slavic surname, but knows nothing of his YDNA ancestry, due to his grandfather dying when his father was very young. He has no matches at 37 markers, and only three at 25 markers. These three all have English surnames, and two of the three appear to have an origin in Cheshire None of the three have tested beyond the M269 level. A coincidence?

EDIT: I now have had more information from this individual. His Family Finder My Origins shows 76% East Europe and 12% Southeast Europe, compared to only 10% British Isles, so I am inclined to accept his belief that his surname is a shortened version of a Slavic one, and that his 25 marker exclusively British matches is due to the enormous over-weighting of people of British ancestry in the FTDNA database and likely coincidental.

newm1988
04-05-2019, 12:29 AM
I noticed that both Family Tree DNA and the Big Tree have recently added R-FGC84729 as a branch of R-P312 which includes both DF99 and ZZ37. If this is correct, DF99 and ZZ37 are brother branches underneath R-P312.

Webb
04-05-2019, 02:03 AM
I noticed that both Family Tree DNA and the Big Tree have recently added R-FGC84729 as a branch of R-P312 which includes both DF99 and ZZ37. If this is correct, DF99 and ZZ37 are brother branches underneath R-P312.

If you go to Alex’s main page it doesn’t show this snp linking DF99 and ZZ37, but if you do a google search of FGC84729 it shows it links both.

Webb
04-05-2019, 01:01 PM
If you go to Alex’s main page it doesn’t show this snp linking DF99 and ZZ37, but if you do a google search of FGC84729 it shows it links both.

I have checked and rechecked Alex's tree and either it is a placement mistake, a glitch, or it really does link DF99 and ZZ37. Alex has several blocks that show snps that are just FGC847 and several others. Almost like it is missing the last few digits. According to Genetic Homeland's website FGC84729 is the parent of DF99 and ZZ37. So I don't know what to make of it. If it is really a parent marker of both, then I wonder why it is just now being shown as such. Could it be as a result of the Big Y700? While many people are trying to get further down the tree, I for one get excited when we find a new marker higher up on the tree that can link certain clades together. It can tell us a lot about the current formation of the many clades under P312.

Webb
04-14-2019, 04:18 PM
Did anyone figure out if FGC84729 is the parent of DF99 and ZZ37/ZZ38?

Telfermagne
04-16-2019, 03:53 PM
Got my results in. R-BY21747.

GoldenHind
04-16-2019, 05:36 PM
Did anyone figure out if FGC84729 is the parent of DF99 and ZZ37/ZZ38?

Evidently so. It is turning up both on the Big Tree and in a recent DF99 Big Y result.

Webb
04-16-2019, 06:12 PM
Evidently so. It is turning up both on the Big Tree and in a recent DF99 Big Y result.

That is a pretty big discovery, making ZZ11 and FGC84729 siblings. I am hoping that maybe the BigY700 will facilitate some more upper level snp discoveries.

Telfermagne
04-17-2019, 03:24 AM
If I understand how the block tree works, given that I belong to R-BY21747 I fall in the "block" of R-BY21728. The only other fellow I have noticed in this block bears an Anglo surname that seems to have been "Planted" in Ireland. I also took a peak at the Big Tree at ytree.net in order to get an idea regarding the age of the "block".

I think it is important here to pay attention to "central tendencies". Central tendencies show a typical value, as such they show a characteristic that is to be expected of a particular situation or thing. The given situation is an existence - of a common ancestor. A characteristic, or adjective, that is to be expected of an existence is an extant - some date in the past where the common ancestor was presently enduring. Here the central tendency shows an extant that is to be expected of a particular existence.

The best measure of central tendency is contingent upon the situation at hand. The situation at hand pertains to dates. A date is a form of an interval. Given that the mean, median and mode are not symmetrical, i.e. they do not occur on the same point in the given graph, the interval is skewed. Therefore, the best measure of central tendency in this case is the median.

The median MRCA is 826.1 YBP, roughly 1193 A.D. So, it would seem as though the sought after ancestor lived on the cusp between the 12th and 13th centuries. Given that my own family is known to be English, and that the other family is probably Anglo-Irish, the relevant “land” seems to be England.

GoldenHind
04-17-2019, 06:53 PM
If I understand how the block tree works, given that I belong to R-BY21747 I fall in the "block" of R-BY21728. The only other fellow I have noticed in this block bears an Anglo surname that seems to have been "Planted" in Ireland. I also took a peak at the Big Tree at ytree.net in order to get an idea regarding the age of the "block".

I think it is important here to pay attention to "central tendencies". Central tendencies show a typical value, as such they show a characteristic that is to be expected of a particular situation or thing. The given situation is an existence - of a common ancestor. A characteristic, or adjective, that is to be expected of an existence is an extant - some date in the past where the common ancestor was presently enduring. Here the central tendency shows an extant that is to be expected of a particular existence.

The best measure of central tendency is contingent upon the situation at hand. The situation at hand pertains to dates. A date is a form of an interval. Given that the mean, median and mode are not symmetrical, i.e. they do not occur on the same point in the given graph, the interval is skewed. Therefore, the best measure of central tendency in this case is the median.

The median MRCA is 826.1 YBP, roughly 1193 A.D. So, it would seem as though the sought after ancestor lived on the cusp between the 12th and 13th centuries. Given that my own family is known to be English, and that the other family is probably Anglo-Irish, the relevant “land” seems to be England.

Both FTDNA and the Big Tree currently list BY21747 and BY21728 as pylogenetically(?) equivalent SNPs, meaning that everyone who has one has both, and no one to date has just one of the two. These markers form a subclade of DF99>FGC847>FGC864>FGC858. To date this latter group appears to be exclusively of English origin. However I strongly suspect, based on his shared off-modal STR markers, that the Russian DF99>FGC847>FGC864 of Moscow Boyar origin is almost certainly FGC858+ as well. Since an English origin for the Russian seems extremely unlikely to me, my guess is that both he and the English group share a common origin from somewhere outside of England.

I looked at your results, and it appears that you are positive for BY21747 but negative for BY21728. If that is correct, you would be the first to split BY21747 into two subclades, one positive for BY21728 and one negative. The Anglo-Irish family you mention and another family of four people who share the same English surname (at least one of them lists an origin in Warwickshire) appear to be positive for both of those markers.

However I think we need confirmation of this from the Alex W.'s Big Tree.

Telfermagne
04-17-2019, 07:45 PM
Schweeeet. I like the idea of being the weirdo to split the block. I uploaded my file to the Big Tree, so reckon it's wait and see.

GoldenHind
04-18-2019, 06:33 PM
Schweeeet. I like the idea of being the weirdo to split the block. I uploaded my file to the Big Tree, so reckon it's wait and see.

I checked your results once again, and find that FTDNA shows you under BY21728 in the block view, but negative (not derived) for that marker in the Big Y results section. So I guess we'll have to wait for Alex at the Big Tree sort out the inconsistency.

Telfermagne
04-23-2019, 12:22 AM
I decided to contact FTDNA, I am not holding my breath:

"Good evening.

There seems to be a discrepancy with my Big-Y results. The block tree view shows that I am derived from R-BY21728, however in my results tab I am negative for that SNP.

My results do show that I am positive for what is currently listed as a phylogenetically equivalent SNP: R-BY21747.

It would be fine and dandy if my result does in fact split BY21728 and BY21747 into two separate branches. However, given that the two are currently presumed to be phylogenetically equivalent it would be irresponsible to make a definitive conclusion until verifying the accuracy of the result.

Hopefully this matter can be resolved somewhat expeditiously given the cost of the Big-Y test."

If I get a response I will update accordingly. I will be utilizing the customer service instant-chat feature tomorrow - I only remembered to inquire today after they closed up shop for the day :/ .

rms2
04-23-2019, 01:04 AM
It has been my experience that phone calls to FTDNA are way more effective than email or chat. Just my two cents. Nowadays if it's something I care about, I call FTDNA.

GoldenHind
04-23-2019, 05:59 PM
I decided to contact FTDNA, I am not holding my breath:

"Good evening.

There seems to be a discrepancy with my Big-Y results. The block tree view shows that I am derived from R-BY21728, however in my results tab I am negative for that SNP.

My results do show that I am positive for what is currently listed as a phylogenetically equivalent SNP: R-BY21747.

It would be fine and dandy if my result does in fact split BY21728 and BY21747 into two separate branches. However, given that the two are currently presumed to be phylogenetically equivalent it would be irresponsible to make a definitive conclusion until verifying the accuracy of the result.

Hopefully this matter can be resolved somewhat expeditiously given the cost of the Big-Y test."

If I get a response I will update accordingly. I will be utilizing the customer service instant-chat feature tomorrow - I only remembered to inquire today after they closed up shop for the day :/ .

You are showing as pending final analysis on the Big Tree, but I note he currently lists you as positive for both BY21728 and BY21747, as well as numerous other markers in the same block. My guess is that your Big Y result at FTDNA is inaccurate when it says "Derived- No" for BY21728.

Webb
04-23-2019, 08:30 PM
You are showing as pending final analysis on the Big Tree, but I note he currently lists you as positive for both BY21728 and BY21747, as well as numerous other markers in the same block. My guess is that your Big Y result at FTDNA is inaccurate when it says "Derived- No" for BY21728.

Block BY21728 has a formed date of 1124 AD, based on McDonald's age calculation. Do you think this is pretty accurate?

newm1988
04-24-2019, 12:39 AM
Did anyone figure out if FGC84729 is the parent of DF99 and ZZ37/ZZ38?

I checked the reads on kits from all four major branches of ZZ37 and they are all FGC84729+. It's interesting that ZZ37 and DF99 are brother branches given that ZZ37 is almost completely British and DF99 has such a heavy continental European presence.

GoldenHind
04-24-2019, 02:34 AM
I checked the reads on kits from all four major branches of ZZ37 and they are all FGC84729+. It's interesting that ZZ37 and DF99 are brother branches given that ZZ37 is almost completely British and DF99 has such a heavy continental European presence.

That was my first reaction as well. It appears that they must have taken largely different routes after their origination, which was certainly on the continent. That is not a unique situation with P312. Take the case of closely related L21, primarily found in Britain and Ireland, and L238, found almost exclusively on the continent, primarily in Scandinavia.

I note though that the ZZ37 subclade includes a few people with Finnish and German origins. That would seem to be more consistent with much of the currently known distribution of DF99. I suspect more from the continent will be found in due time.

And whenever dealing with FTDNA, one must keep in mind the overwhelming overweighting of men of British and Irish origins in their database. This is likely at least partially responsible for the scarcity of ZZ37 from the continent to date.

GoldenHind
04-24-2019, 02:57 AM
Block BY21728 has a formed date of 1124 AD, based on McDonald's age calculation. Do you think this is pretty accurate?

I don't pretend to understand how SNP ages are calculated, but I've never put too much weight on them.

FGC858, the SNP directly above the BY21728 block, is currently given an age estimate of about 1600 BC. However the BY21728 block currently has some 27 different markers, so whichever of them is the most recent is obviously considerably younger. The Big Tree gives a 95% confidence level for the BY21728 block of from 558 AD to 1482 AD. I wouldn't quibble with that, but my gut feeling is that it is probably somewhere in the middle of that range. It certainly would appear to be prior to the time of surname adoption in England, which began very gradually with the Norman Conquest in 1066 and is thought to have been largely completed by around 1400 AD.

GoldenHind
04-25-2019, 08:48 PM
I have discovered that while there are three men in the FTDNA system who have tested DF99>FGC847>FGC854>BY152555. However only one of them is in the DF99 Project (ancestry from the London area). The other two are unidentified, but presumably got their results from the Big Y. One of those two indicates origins in the UK, the other in France.

By doing a little digging, I have partially identified one of the two. He is listed only by initials and does not list an EKA. He tested with Igenea, a DNA testing company in Switzerland. Igenea's tests are performed by the FTDNA lab, and their results are incorporated into the FTDNA database. My guess is that he is the person who indicated an origin in France, and that he is a French national. The important but unanswered question is what part of France his ancestors came from. DF99 has proved to very rare in France to date, having been found only in Normandy, Alsace and Savoy.

I have come across other men who have tested DF99+ with Igenea in the FTDNA database, and not a single one of them is in the DF99 project or has responded to emails sent to them through Igenea. My recollection is that most of them have German surnames, and my surmise is that they are most likely Swiss nationals.

Telfermagne
04-26-2019, 05:17 AM
FTDNA replied back, they said that I split the block. Now they're saying my terminal SNP is BY21739 but my results tab still has BY21747 +.

Telfermagne
04-26-2019, 02:52 PM
So, with the new tree BY21747 and BY21739 appear to be equivalent, with BY21728 existing downstream.

GoldenHind
04-27-2019, 06:04 PM
A new DF99 in this week. The result was entirely predictable from his markers and matches. He has a common surname which could either be English or an anglicization of an equivalent German surname; However one of his 67 marker matches is of undoubted German origin, which leads me to suspect a Pennsylvania "Dutch" descent in his case. He also has a number of same surname 67 marker matches, none of whom has tested beyond M269. He is in the P312 Project, but has not yet joined the DF99 Project.

EDIT: I have now learned his EKA was born in Pennsylvania in the 18th C. which reinforces my assumption of a Pennsylvania Dutch origin.

GoldenHind
05-04-2019, 04:40 PM
So, with the new tree BY21747 and BY21739 appear to be equivalent, with BY21728 existing downstream.

Your position on the Big Tree appears to have been finally completed. It shows you are positive for a block of eight markers below FGC847>FGC864>FGC858 which includes BY21739 and BY21747, but negative for the large block of some 20 markers which includes BY21728. Since this agrees with your position at FTDNA, I think this issue can now be considered resolved.

Theconqueror
05-15-2019, 12:34 PM
IF you tried the snptracker, there are some puzzling information about DF99. If you input DF99 and run the map, and then select 'descendants' on the menu, the map will show a number of downward descendants for DF99 (or fgc16982 my end snp) with medieval labels in Germany. Now, the only known ancient DF99 individual is the Lombard CL94. How do we explain this?

GoldenHind
05-15-2019, 05:17 PM
IF you tried the snptracker, there are some puzzling information about DF99. If you input DF99 and run the map, and then select 'descendants' on the menu, the map will show a number of downward descendants for DF99 (or fgc16982 my end snp) with medieval labels in Germany. Now, the only known ancient DF99 individual is the Lombard CL94. How do we explain this?

I don't have any idea what data they are using, but that result comes as no surprise to me. I think it is clear that the majority of DF99 has a connection with the Germanic world.

EDIT: Looking at the SNP tracker tool thread on this forum, it appears that the author of the program did not use any ancient DNA samples, but used modern samples from FTDNA along with their indicated ancestral origins and took the dates from YFull.

Telfermagne
05-30-2019, 01:41 AM
With regards to the nodes of R-BY21739, I played around with Y-Full's age estimate thing.

So, my branch with 17 "corrected" SNPs, 144.41 as the assumed mutation rate, and 60 years as the assumed age of "donors", the age of my particular R-BY21739 node would be given by (17*144.41)+60. So, 2514.97 years or thereabout.

To put that in the scope of history, the ballpark seems potentially relevant to the 490's BCE. A significant historic event from around then would be the First Secessio Plebis, kind of tugs at the heart strings there.

With regard to descendant nodes:

R-BY21728 Anglo-Irish guy - 5 "corrected" SNPs, so 13th Century(ish)

R-BY21754 & R-BY21755 presumably Anglo family - averaged to the 15th Century(ish)

Kind of lonely with how far back the split seems to have happened. Not too surprised though given that males of my line tend to be complete weirdos, selection is a b**** - only natural that we'd have a buttload worth of private variants.

GoldenHind
06-24-2019, 07:54 PM
I thought an update on DF99 Big Y results might be of interest. There are 68 of them that I know of. 61 of them are currently listed on the BigTree, plus two from the 1000 genomes Project. There is one from the Czech republic who is in the FTDNA DF99 Project, but has not posted his results on the BigTree website. There are three others that are neither in the DF99 Porject nor have entered their data on the BigTree, but whose results are listed among the matches of Project members .

Of the total of 68, all of them are in one of the three known DF99 subclades, which are 1) FGC847, 2) FGC16982 and 3) BY3449/BY3450. I think this makes it unlikely, though not impossible, that there is another subclade directly below DF99 that remains to be discovered.

By far the most common subclade under DF99 is FGC16979 (DF99>FGC16982>S16136>FGC16979). This accounts for around 45% of the total Big Y results, and is pretty widespread in Europe, though like DF99 overall, is concentrated in Germanic language countries.

There are more still pending, including several upgrades from the original BigY to the BigY 700, but I don't expect there will be any surprises.

Roaring
06-26-2019, 09:55 PM
I thought an update on DF99 Big Y results might be of interest. There are 68 of them that I know of. 61 of them are currently listed on the BigTree, plus two from the 1000 genomes Project. There is one from the Czech republic who is in the FTDNA DF99 Project, but has not posted his results on the BigTree website. There are three others that are neither in the DF99 Porject nor have entered their data on the BigTree, but whose results are listed among the matches of Project members .

Of the total of 68, all of them are in one of the three known DF99 subclades, which are 1) FGC847, 2) FGC16982 and 3) BY3449/BY3450. I think this makes it unlikely, though not impossible, that there is another subclade directly below DF99 that remains to be discovered.

By far the most common subclade under DF99 is FGC16979 (DF99>FGC16982>S16136>FGC16979). This accounts for around 45% of the total Big Y results, and is pretty widespread in Europe, though like DF99 overall, is concentrated in Germanic language countries.

There are more still pending, including several upgrades from the original BigY to the BigY 700, but I don't expect there will be any surprises.

What about percentages and distribution of other two subclades?

GoldenHind
06-27-2019, 11:19 PM
What about percentages and distribution of other two subclades?

This requires some effort, so I'll start with FGC847. Incidentally it currently appears to be roughly the same size as the third subclade BY3449/BY3450.

Based on Big Y results, most of FGC847 falls into the FGC858 subclade (DF99>FGC847>FGC864>FGC858). To date this group appears to be exclusively English. If the pedigree of one of them can be believed, that family appears to be of Norman origin, and there is some possibility that most or even all of them could be as well, but that is highly speculative. This group has a fairly strong STR signature.

Positive for FGC847 and FGC864 but negative for FGC858 includes another from England and the mysterious anonymous Peruvian from the !KG Project, the latter of whom may or may not be of Spanish origin.

If one includes those who have done individual SNP testing but not the Big Y, FGC847>FGC864 includes an Anglo-Irish family, a VA colonial American family presumably of English origin and the Russian descendant of a Moscow Boyar family. It should be noted that none of them have tested for FGC858, which at present can only be tested in the Big Y.

Finally positive for FGC847 but negative for FGC864 (ie. FGC847*) includes one from Luxembourg (German or English surname) and one from north central Germany (Niedersachsen/Lower Saxony).

As a cautionary note, a large number of confirmed DF99 men have not done any SNP testing beyond DF99, so all this should be viewed as preliminary.

GoldenHind
06-28-2019, 10:31 PM
Finally the BY3449/BY3450 subclade. First I should point out that these markers so far have an equivalent position. There is only one person so far who is P3449/3450* in the Big Y. His ancestry is from northern Italy (Veneto). However there are others who are the same category who have only done individual SNP testing. There are two from northern Italy (Piedmont and Lombardy), a family from either Germany or Switzerland (this seems to be disputed) and an Englishman from East Anglia. One of the two of Italian origin has the Big Y on order, so we may get some further deliniation under this subclade when his results come in.

The rest of the Big Y tests for this subclade are also positive for BY3447, located directly below BY3449/50. One only is BY3447*, with ancestry from SE Poland but a surname which suggests a German origin.

The rest are all at least one additional step below BY3447. There is a family from SW Germany, another northern Italian (Piedmont), an American family with a surname most common in the East Midlands of England, and a large American family which is probably of Welsh origin. There is some indication the latter family was founded by an English knight who was awarded lands in Wales by Edward I.

GoldenHind
06-30-2019, 08:29 PM
Another Icelander with origins in Denmark in the 15C has joined the DF99 project. His first name begins with a runic letter still in use in Iceland. He has ordered a test for DF99, and based on his markers and matches I have no doubt whatsoever he will get a positive result.

GoldenHind
07-11-2019, 05:26 PM
Another Icelander with origins in Denmark in the 15C has joined the DF99 project. His first name begins with a runic letter still in use in Iceland. He has ordered a test for DF99, and based on his markers and matches I have no doubt whatsoever he will get a positive result.

In a remarkably fast result, this Icelander has now tested DF99+, as expected.

Telfermagne
07-13-2019, 08:09 PM
I really hope that the donor decides to purchase something like the Big-Y eventually (along with a few others that I'm interested in). Kinda stinks that the products are not always marketable to persons of interest.

Also, does anyone have more information on the Lombard DF99 that was found (CL94)?

I'm also confused as to why some refer to this individual as mostly Southern European, I have the supplementary data from that study and CL94 is a three-way mix roughly of Northern+Intermediate+Southern:

1/3rd (GBR+CEU + FIN), 1/3rd TSI (Tuscan, an intermediate pop, neither strictly Southern or whatever) and then 1/3rd Iberian.
31713

The populations used to create proportions for the remains are modern, and modern day Tuscans are not strictly Southern European, they're a "highway population" like the French and Germans, already deeply mixed :/

Theconqueror
07-15-2019, 03:38 PM
In terms of ancient, the picture is somewhat different.


Input Group Name Details Fit
1 ITA_Collegno_MA:CL94 Spanish_Baleares HG01615 Modern; 2.728
2 ITA_Collegno_MA:CL94 Spanish_Baleares_Averaged Averaged 2.756
3 ITA_Collegno_MA:CL94 Custom AGUser_MassamToulouse 2.818
4 ITA_Collegno_MA:CL94 Spanish_Andalucia HG01619 Modern; 2.912
5 ITA_Collegno_MA:CL94 French French67 Modern; 2.913
6 ITA_Collegno_MA:CL94 Spanish_Aragon HG01673 Modern; 2.917
7 ITA_Collegno_MA:CL94 French French33 Modern; 2.962
8 ITA_Collegno_MA:CL94 Bell_Beaker_CZE I4885 Ancient; BCE:2150 2.98
9 ITA_Collegno_MA:CL94 Iberia_Northeast_c.8-12CE_Averaged Averaged 2.983
10 ITA_Collegno_MA:CL94 French French9 Modern; 2.988
11 ITA_Collegno_MA:CL94 Spanish_Cataluna HG01537 Modern; 3.005
12 ITA_Collegno_MA:CL94 Bell_Beaker_Bavaria I5520 Ancient; BCE:2250 3.084
13 ITA_Collegno_MA:CL94 Spanish_Baleares HG01613 Modern; 3.112
14 ITA_Collegno_MA:CL94 Austrian Austria10 Modern; 3.113
15 ITA_Collegno_MA:CL94 HUN_MA_Szolad SZ45 Ancient; CE:505 3.118
16 ITA_Collegno_MA:CL94 Spanish_Cataluna_Averaged Averaged 3.16
17 ITA_Collegno_MA:CL94 Spanish_Valencia HG01605 Modern; 3.161
18 ITA_Collegno_MA:CL94 Spanish_Andalucia_Averaged Averaged 3.164
19 ITA_Collegno_MA:CL94 Italian_Bergamo_Averaged Averaged 3.171
20 ITA_Collegno_MA:CL94 French French3 Modern; 3.189
21 ITA_Collegno_MA:CL94 French_Averaged Averaged 3.191
22 ITA_Collegno_MA:CL94 Italian_Bergamo HGDP01147 Modern; 3.229
23 ITA_Collegno_MA:CL94 Spanish_Valencia_Averaged Averaged 3.235
24 ITA_Collegno_MA:CL94 Spanish_Aragon_Averaged Averaged 3.243
25 ITA_Collegno_MA:CL94 Bell_Beaker_Bavaria E09538 Ancient; BCE:2337 3.253
26 ITA_Collegno_MA:CL94 Spanish_Castilla_La_Mancha_Averaged Averaged 3.254
27 ITA_Collegno_MA:CL94 DEU_Roman FN_2 Ancient; CE:400 3.261
28 ITA_Collegno_MA:CL94 DEU_Roman_Averaged Averaged 3.261
29 ITA_Collegno_MA:CL94 French French46 Modern; 3.281
30 ITA_Collegno_MA:CL94 Spanish_Extremadura HG01510 Modern; 3.29
31 ITA_Collegno_MA:CL94 French French36 Modern; 3.294
32 ITA_Collegno_MA:CL94 Spanish_Cantabria HG01513 Modern; 3.31
33 ITA_Collegno_MA:CL94 Spanish_Murcia_Averaged Averaged 3.314
34 ITA_Collegno_MA:CL94 Spanish_Cantabria_Averaged Averaged 3.323
35 ITA_Collegno_MA:CL94 Custom AGUser_Massam 3.329
36 ITA_Collegno_MA:CL94 Spanish_Castilla_Y_Leon HG01506 Modern; 3.37
37 ITA_Collegno_MA:CL94 Iberia_Northeast_c.8-12CE I10895 Ancient; CE:879 3.373
38 ITA_Collegno_MA:CL94 French_East French24148 Modern; 3.389
39 ITA_Collegno_MA:CL94 French French32 Modern; 3.394
40 ITA_Collegno_MA:CL94 Spanish_Valencia HG01607 Modern; 3.432
41 ITA_Collegno_MA:CL94 Bell_Beaker_CHE_Averaged Averaged 3.433
42 ITA_Collegno_MA:CL94 HUN_MA_Szolad SZ28 Ancient; CE:505 3.444
43 ITA_Collegno_MA:CL94 Custom AGUser_Massam_father 3.456
44 ITA_Collegno_MA:CL94 French French4 Modern; 3.459
45 ITA_Collegno_MA:CL94 Bell_Beaker_Bavaria I5524 Ancient; BCE:2250 3.461
46 ITA_Collegno_MA:CL94 Custom AGUser_bigl 3.463
47 ITA_Collegno_MA:CL94 Spanish_Baleares HG01625 Modern; 3.508
48 ITA_Collegno_MA:CL94 HUN_BA I7043 Ancient; BCE:2350 3.515
49 ITA_Collegno_MA:CL94 French French40 Modern; 3.541
50 ITA_Collegno_MA:CL94 Iberia_Northeast_c.6CE_PL_Averaged Averaged 3.542
51 ITA_Collegno_MA:CL94 Custom AGUser_Dewsloth_dad 3.545
52 ITA_Collegno_MA:CL94 French_East_Averaged Averaged 3.582
53 ITA_Collegno_MA:CL94 Spanish_Cantabria HG01679 Modern; 3.582
54 ITA_Collegno_MA:CL94 Spanish_Castilla_Y_Leon_Averaged Averaged 3.59
55 ITA_Collegno_MA:CL94 HRV_MBA_Averaged Averaged 3.599
56 ITA_Collegno_MA:CL94 French_South SouthFrench3326 Modern; 3.599
57 ITA_Collegno_MA:CL94 Belgian Belgium6 Modern; 3.615
58 ITA_Collegno_MA:CL94 Italian_Bergamo HGDP01153 Modern; 3.617
59 ITA_Collegno_MA:CL94 Spanish_Castilla_La_Mancha HG01503 Modern; 3.646
60 ITA_Collegno_MA:CL94 BGR_EBA I2165 Ancient; BCE:2957 3.656
61 ITA_Collegno_MA:CL94 Spanish_Extremadura_Averaged Averaged 3.657
62 ITA_Collegno_MA:CL94 German German2 Modern; 3.657
63 ITA_Collegno_MA:CL94 Iberia_Northeast_c.6-8CE_ES_Averaged Averaged 3.662
64 ITA_Collegno_MA:CL94 French_East French24124 Modern; 3.685
65 ITA_Collegno_MA:CL94 Iberia_Northeast_c.8-12CE I10892 Ancient; CE:985 3.688
66 ITA_Collegno_MA:CL94 French French50 Modern; 3.741
67 ITA_Collegno_MA:CL94 Custom AGUser_MatAust 3.748
68 ITA_Collegno_MA:CL94 French French20 Modern; 3.772
69 ITA_Collegno_MA:CL94 Spanish_Cantabria HG01512 Modern; 3.773
70 ITA_Collegno_MA:CL94 French_South_Averaged Averaged 3.775
71 ITA_Collegno_MA:CL94 Custom AGUser_Rabai 3.781
72 ITA_Collegno_MA:CL94 Belgian Belgium25 Modern; 3.785
73 ITA_Collegno_MA:CL94 German German5 Modern; 3.787
74 ITA_Collegno_MA:CL94 Portuguese_Averaged Averaged 3.795
75 ITA_Collegno_MA:CL94 Spanish_Castilla_La_Mancha HG02238 Modern; 3.804
76 ITA_Collegno_MA:CL94 German German48 Modern; 3.817
77 ITA_Collegno_MA:CL94 Italian_Bergamo HGDP01155 Modern; 3.818
78 ITA_Collegno_MA:CL94 Levant_LBN_MA_Euro_Averaged Averaged 3.82
79 ITA_Collegno_MA:CL94 Italian_Bergamo HGDP01152 Modern; 3.827
80 ITA_Collegno_MA:CL94 French French8 Modern; 3.84
81 ITA_Collegno_MA:CL94 HRV_MBA I4332 Ancient; BCE:1600 3.847
82 ITA_Collegno_MA:CL94 Spanish_Castilla_Y_Leon HG01501 Modern; 3.869
83 ITA_Collegno_MA:CL94 Spanish_Andalucia HG01620 Modern; 3.874
84 ITA_Collegno_MA:CL94 Spanish_Murcia HG01617 Modern; 3.876
85 ITA_Collegno_MA:CL94 Spanish_Extremadura HG01527 Modern; 3.876
86 ITA_Collegno_MA:CL94 Custom AGUser_conqueror 3.886
87 ITA_Collegno_MA:CL94 Spanish_Andalucia HG01623 Modern; 3.886
88 ITA_Collegno_MA:CL94 ITA_Collegno_MA CL47 Ancient; CE:671 3.891
89 ITA_Collegno_MA:CL94 French_East French24075 Modern; 3.899
90 ITA_Collegno_MA:CL94 Custom AGUser_Fabiola 3.906
91 ITA_Collegno_MA:CL94 Spanish_Aragon HG01676 Modern; 3.907
92 ITA_Collegno_MA:CL94 Austrian Austria4 Modern; 3.909
93 ITA_Collegno_MA:CL94 Spanish_Murcia HG01699 Modern; 3.925
94 ITA_Collegno_MA:CL94 HUN_BA I7040 Ancient; BCE:2350 3.927
95 ITA_Collegno_MA:CL94 French French22 Modern; 3.928
96 ITA_Collegno_MA:CL94 Iberia_Northeast_Empuries1_Averaged Averaged 3.934
97 ITA_Collegno_MA:CL94 French_East French23919 Modern; 3.949
98 ITA_Collegno_MA:CL94 Bell_Beaker_ITA I2478 Ancient; BCE:2065 3.956
99 ITA_Collegno_MA:CL94 Spanish_Castilla_La_Mancha HG01746 Modern; 3.958
100 ITA_Collegno_MA:CL94 Portuguese Portugal2 Modern; 3.965

Telfermagne
07-15-2019, 09:23 PM
In terms of ancient, the picture is somewhat different.

Most excellent. I want to run the remains through MDLP k11 Modern since it seems to eliminate the inclusion of modern samples (judging by the population names used in the source spreadsheet, confirmation as to whether that's true or not would be swell) - the reason being, to reduce the chance of needlessly large variance which contributes to over-fitting. Another issue is tracking an accurate kit on Gedmatch so I can get the source values to do an nMonte hoopitydoop.

EDIT

I think I found CL94

CA9725839

I really hope it's legit.

Telfermagne
07-15-2019, 10:21 PM
I ran what seems to be CL94's Gedmatch kit through the MDLP k11, and nMonte. But, I think this individual is used in the calculator, but I'm not sure which population they're included in since the ID's from the studies were stripped from the populations. Each model I got was pretty much trash, either way far out in distance or over-fitted like a mofo. Back to the drawing board :/

Theconqueror
07-15-2019, 11:23 PM
I have this gedmatch ID

Kit Number: Z104813 (135,630 SNPs)
Name: CL94
1 Italian_North @ 5.977793
1 Frisian + Russian-West + Sardinian + Sicilian_Center @ 2.414938

gedmatch is down right now, I will check later to run it again.

Theconqueror
07-15-2019, 11:23 PM
delete

Theconqueror
07-15-2019, 11:29 PM
and this is the Lombards on a PCA. pretty clear where CL94 lands.

31785

Telfermagne
07-16-2019, 12:07 AM
Tried doing some BEUTi and BEAST junk to go with ggtree, but crashed everything when trying to convert the data to a Nexus format that would be accepted by the programs :(

Reckon until I have an appropriate system to use the inquiry will be sidelined on my end.

I was wanting to create a phylogenetic tree with all these ancient DNA goobers, CL94 included, plus my own (& parents') genome data.

I have to redownload the supplementary material, but if memory serves there was a record of the Y-SNPs tested - curious if anyone noticed anything that stood out as possibly down stream of DF99?

GoldenHind
07-16-2019, 12:10 AM
and this is the Lombards on a PCA. pretty clear where CL94 lands.

31785

The attachment appears to be invalid.

While I am on pretty firm ground with Y-DNA, I don't understand this PCA stuff at all, or the long series of comparisons you posted above. Could you please tell us what you think it signifies?

GoldenHind
07-16-2019, 12:19 AM
I really hope that the donor decides to purchase something like the Big-Y eventually (along with a few others that I'm interested in). Kinda stinks that the products are not always marketable to persons of interest.

Also, does anyone have more information on the Lombard DF99 that was found (CL94)?

I'm also confused as to why some refer to this individual as mostly Southern European, I have the supplementary data from that study and CL94 is a three-way mix roughly of Northern+Intermediate+Southern:

1/3rd (GBR+CEU + FIN), 1/3rd TSI (Tuscan, an intermediate pop, neither strictly Southern or whatever) and then 1/3rd Iberian.
31713

The populations used to create proportions for the remains are modern, and modern day Tuscans are not strictly Southern European, they're a "highway population" like the French and Germans, already deeply mixed :/

I have considering contacting the authors to see if they would provide more information. The isotopic study established that he wasn't from the local area, but I couldn't find anything about what area he is believed to have come from. His grave was apparently disturbed in the past (whether by grave robbers or a plow I have no idea), so there were apparently no grave goods found with him.

I have never been able to figure out why comparing his autosomal DNA with the modern results from the 1000 Genomes Project should signify much of anything. Half of it would have come from his mother, and another quarter from his paternal grandmother, so I can't see that it tells us much of anything about the origin of his Y-DNA ancestors. If anyone thinks this is somehow important, perhaps they could explain why.

Telfermagne
07-16-2019, 10:40 AM
I have considering contacting the authors to see if they would provide more information. The isotopic study established that he wasn't from the local area, but I couldn't find anything about what area he is believed to have come from. His grave was apparently disturbed in the past (whether by grave robbers or a plow I have no idea), so there were apparently no grave goods found with him.

I have never been able to figure out why comparing his autosomal DNA with the modern results from the 1000 Genomes Project should signify much of anything. Half of it would have come from his mother, and another quarter from his paternal grandmother, so I can't see that it tells us much of anything about the origin of his Y-DNA ancestors. If anyone thinks this is somehow important, perhaps they could explain why.

Comparison to the moderns won't be that informative, akin to analyzing crude oil vapor by the conditions of diesel fuel distillate (a relationship exists between the two, but understanding the basal substance by looking at the derived substance can only give so much info).

Now, looking at the person against the ancient autosomal DNA available can be helpful in terms of tracking down how that person got to their grave if they match best with ancients outside of the area where they died. It can give some insight into what the vessel was for transporting that Y-DNA.

Theconqueror
07-16-2019, 12:03 PM
for some reason quotas on jpegs screw up every single upload, sorry

Roaring
07-16-2019, 07:26 PM
I have considering contacting the authors to see if they would provide more information. The isotopic study established that he wasn't from the local area, but I couldn't find anything about what area he is believed to have come from. His grave was apparently disturbed in the past (whether by grave robbers or a plow I have no idea), so there were apparently no grave goods found with him.

I have never been able to figure out why comparing his autosomal DNA with the modern results from the 1000 Genomes Project should signify much of anything. Half of it would have come from his mother, and another quarter from his paternal grandmother, so I can't see that it tells us much of anything about the origin of his Y-DNA ancestors. If anyone thinks this is somehow important, perhaps they could explain why.

Comparing medieval and modern genomes in admixture calcs is ok, as the basic Euro mixture of H-Gs, Farmers and IEs had already happened.


I have this gedmatch ID

Kit Number: Z104813 (135,630 SNPs)
Name: CL94
1 Italian_North @ 5.977793
1 Frisian + Russian-West + Sardinian + Sicilian_Center @ 2.414938

gedmatch is down right now, I will check later to run it again.

Are you shure it's the right number? I can't find it on gedmatch.

GoldenHind
07-17-2019, 02:07 AM
Comparing medieval and modern genomes in admixture calcs is ok, as the basic Euro mixture of H-Gs, Farmers and IEs had already happened.



Perhaps so, if you want to know his admixture, but what does it ell us about where he came from? Since an isotopic analysis of his teeth enamel established he wan't a local, he obviously came to Collegno from somewhere else. But where? I can't see Iberia as a very likely option.

Roaring
07-17-2019, 12:56 PM
Perhaps so, if you want to know his admixture, but what does it ell us about where he came from? Since an isotopic analysis of his teeth enamel established he wan't a local, he obviously came to Collegno from somewhere else. But where? I can't see Iberia as a very likely option.

Well we can speculate his origins basing on admixture results.

Theconqueror
07-17-2019, 03:09 PM
Comparing medieval and modern genomes in admixture calcs is ok, as the basic Euro mixture of H-Gs, Farmers and IEs had already happened.



Are you shure it's the right number? I can't find it on gedmatch.

I know many ancients were deleted, not sure where it stands now.

GoldenHind
07-17-2019, 05:10 PM
Well we can speculate his origins basing on admixture results.

Where would you speculate he came from?

Telfermagne
07-17-2019, 05:46 PM
I know many ancients were deleted, not sure where it stands now.

Apparently it's CA9725839, but I'm not sure how reliable the source is.

Frithnanth
07-17-2019, 05:52 PM
Where would you speculate he came from?

Maybe the central or southern part of Italy? Or even Pannonia, as there were samples from Szólád with similar autosomal composition:confused:

GoldenHind
07-17-2019, 10:36 PM
Maybe the central or southern part of Italy? Or even Pannonia, as there were samples from Szólád with similar autosomal composition:confused:

Pannonia I could accept, as the Lombards passed through there on their way to Italy. Central and southern Italy seem unlikely though not impossible to me, as they both appear to be almost totally devoid of DF99 today.

According to Wikipedia, the Lombards were accompanied in their invasion of Italy by numerous Germanic tribes including Saxons, Heruls, Gepids, Thuringians and Ostrogoths.

Frithnanth
07-19-2019, 10:08 AM
Most excellent. I want to run the remains through MDLP k11 Modern since it seems to eliminate the inclusion of modern samples (judging by the population names used in the source spreadsheet, confirmation as to whether that's true or not would be swell) - the reason being, to reduce the chance of needlessly large variance which contributes to over-fitting. Another issue is tracking an accurate kit on Gedmatch so I can get the source values to do an nMonte hoopitydoop.

EDIT

I think I found CL94

CA9725839

I really hope it's legit.

According to the following eupedia post, CL94 is kit number ZQ6809113.

https://www.eupedia.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-38478.html

Telfermagne
07-19-2019, 12:30 PM
Indeed that's the one, poops, looks like I was using CL97 :(

Theconqueror
07-19-2019, 02:57 PM
According to the following eupedia post, CL94 is kit number ZQ6809113.

https://www.eupedia.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-38478.html

That's the problem, It is hard to be certain which ancient is on GM unless it is properly documented, anyhow

Kit Num: ZQ6809113
Threshold of components set to 1.000
Threshold of method set to 0.25%
Personal data has been read. 20 approximations mode.
Gedmatch.Com
MDLP K11 Modern 4-Ancestors Oracle
This program is based on 4-Ancestors Oracle Version 0.96 by Alexandr Burnashev.
Questions about results should be sent to him at: [email protected]
Original concept proposed by Sergey Kozlov.
Many thanks to Alexandr for helping us get this web version developed.

MDLP K11 2xOracle and OracleX4

Admix Results (sorted):

#
Population
Percent
1
Neolithic
42.94
2
WHG
24.55
3
EHG
21.77
4
Basal
6.60
5
Iran-Mesolithic
2.04
6
African
1.12


Finished reading population data. 161 populations found.
11 components mode.

--------------------------------

Least-squares method.

Using 1 population approximation:
1 Maros_BA @ 9.773670
2 Germany_BA @ 11.149504
3 Germany_Bronze_Age @ 11.149504
4 Vatya_MBA @ 11.818973
5 British_Celtic @ 17.664240
6 Hungary_BA @ 17.699278
7 Hungary_MBA @ 17.737957
8 Alberstedt_LN @ 19.142637
9 Bell_Beaker_Germany @ 19.143953
10 British_IronAge @ 19.958435
11 Halberstadt_LBA @ 20.940718
12 Hungary_IronAge @ 22.432446
13 Bell_Beaker_Czech @ 22.727676
14 Nordic_MN_B @ 23.028429
15 Bell_Beaker @ 23.279005
16 Nordic_BA @ 23.347420
17 British_AngloSaxon @ 23.671268
18 BenzigerodeHeimburg_LN @ 24.170723
19 Nordic_LN @ 24.477245
20 Swedish_LN @ 25.078018

Using 2 populations approximation:
1 50% Corded_Ware_Germany +50% GermanStuttgart_LBK @ 1.882436


Using 3 populations approximation:
1 50% GermanStuttgart_LBK +25% Karsdorf_LN +25% Nordic_BA @ 1.601844


Using 4 populations approximation:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 Corded_Ware_Germany + Corded_Ware_Germany + GermanStuttgart_LBK + GermanStuttgart_LBK @ 1.333033
2 Corded_Ware_Germany + Corded_Ware_Germany + GermanStuttgart_LBK + GermanStuttgart_LBK @ 1.333033
3 Corded_Ware_Germany + Corded_Ware_Germany + GermanStuttgart_LBK + GermanStuttgart_LBK @ 1.333033
4 Corded_Ware_Germany + GermanStuttgart_LBK + GermanStuttgart_LBK + Srubnaya_LBA @ 1.540037
5 Corded_Ware_Germany + GermanStuttgart_LBK + GermanStuttgart_LBK + Srubnaya_LBA @ 1.540037
6 Corded_Ware_Germany + GermanStuttgart_LBK + GermanStuttgart_LBK + Srubnaya_LBA @ 1.540037
7 GermanStuttgart_LBK + GermanStuttgart_LBK + Karsdorf_LN + Nordic_BA @ 1.601844
8 GermanStuttgart_LBK + GermanStuttgart_LBK + Karsdorf_LN + Nordic_BA @ 1.601844
9 GermanStuttgart_LBK + GermanStuttgart_LBK + Karsdorf_LN + Nordic_BA @ 1.601844
10 GermanStuttgart_LBK + GermanStuttgart_LBK + Karsdorf_LN + Sintashta_MBA @ 1.683308
11 GermanStuttgart_LBK + GermanStuttgart_LBK + Karsdorf_LN + Sintashta_MBA @ 1.683308
12 GermanStuttgart_LBK + GermanStuttgart_LBK + Karsdorf_LN + Sintashta_MBA @ 1.683308
13 GermanStuttgart_LBK + GermanStuttgart_LBK + Karsdorf_LN + Poltavka_MBA_outlier @ 1.684051
14 GermanStuttgart_LBK + GermanStuttgart_LBK + Karsdorf_LN + Poltavka_MBA_outlier @ 1.684051
15 GermanStuttgart_LBK + GermanStuttgart_LBK + Karsdorf_LN + Poltavka_MBA_outlier @ 1.684051
16 Corded_Ware_Proto_Unetice_Poland + GermanStuttgart_LBK + GermanStuttgart_LBK + Yamnaya_Samara_EBA @ 1.732772
17 Corded_Ware_Proto_Unetice_Poland + GermanStuttgart_LBK + GermanStuttgart_LBK + Yamnaya_Samara_EBA @ 1.732772
18 Corded_Ware_Proto_Unetice_Poland + GermanStuttgart_LBK + GermanStuttgart_LBK + Yamnaya_Samara_EBA @ 1.732772
19 Armenia_LBA + GermanStuttgart_LBK + Halberstadt_LBA + Hungary_BA @ 1.739226
20 Armenia_LBA + Halberstadt_LBA + Hungary_BA + GermanStuttgart_LBK @ 1.739226

I doubt it is CL94

Frithnanth
07-19-2019, 04:31 PM
I doubt it is CL94

Why ?

Theconqueror
07-19-2019, 11:35 PM
Simply because this looks quite different than the G25 fitcheck results for CL94.

GoldenHind
07-21-2019, 01:52 AM
So it looks like CL94 continues to be a mystery.

GoldenHind
07-21-2019, 07:29 PM
While looking for something else, I stumbled across someone in France with ancestry from the Loire region who has tested DF99>FGC16982>S16136>FGC16979>FGC17024 in the Big Y. I will contact him and ask him to join the DF99 Project.

GoldenHind
07-23-2019, 07:10 PM
Some may be interested in the recently published study of aDNA from Viking remains. This is currently a hot topic on another thread on this forum. There were a total of 442 samples analyzed. Of these 85 were R1b. There were no DF99 samples among them, and only one DF19 and one L238.

I was disappointed but not astonished by the lack of DF99 samples. It looks to be much more common in Germany than in Scandinavia. However we know that DF99 has been present in at least Denmark and Sweden for some time, and probably in Norway as well, although none from Norway have yet been confirmed. Since it appears that DF99 has always been a rare marker, it is not much of a surprise that one wasn't found among 85 R1b samples. It is also worth noting that twelve of the R1b samples were not classified beyond P312, perhaps due to DNA degradation or perhaps due to incomplete analysis. If the full data files are released to the public, it is possible further analysis of those twelve might turn up a DF99 sample.

CORRECTION: The number of samples in this study that were not classified beyond P312 is eight, not twelve.

Theconqueror
07-24-2019, 03:34 PM
Extremely crude analysis for CL94: Fitcheck G25 1000 samples, keep only ancients and plot by group, the list gives general idea of CL94's ancient autosomal composition.

Row Labels Count of Name
Bell_Beaker_CZE 25
HUN_MA_Szolad 21
Bell_Beaker_Bavaria 17
ITA_Collegno_MA 10
Iberia_East_IA 8
Iberia_Northeast_BA 7
Iberia_Southeast_c.10-16CE 7
England_MBA 6
Bell_Beaker_Iberia 6
DEU_MA_ACD 6
Iberia_North_BA 5
Iberia_Northeast_c.6CE_PL 5
Bell_Beaker_HUN_EBA 5
Iberia_Central_BA 5
Scythian_HUN 5
England_Roman 5
Scythian_MDA 4
Iberia_Northeast_c.8-12CE 4
Bell_Beaker_Mittelelbe-Saale 4
England_IA 4
Iberia_Northeast_Empuries1 4
BGR_EBA 4
England_CA_EBA 4
DEU_MA 4
England_Saxon 4
Scotland_MBA 3
Scotland_LBA 3
Bell_Beaker_England 3
HUN_BA 3
Iberia_Northeast_c.6-8CE_ES 2
HRV_MBA 2
BGR_MP_N 2
CZE_Hallstatt_Bylany 2
Bell_Beaker_FRA_C 2
Bell_Beaker_CHE 2
Iberia_Southeast_c.5-8CE 2
Iberia_Central_CA_Stp 2
Scotland_CA_EBA 2
Bell_Beaker_ITA 2
Iberia_North_IA 2
Bell_Beaker_POL 2
HRV_Early_IA 1
Nordic_LN 1
Iberia_Southwest_BA 1
DEU_Unetice_EBA 1
BGR_Varna_En3 1
SVK_Poprad_MA 1
Scythian_UKR 1
Iberia_Northeast_RomP 1
DEU_Alberstedt_LN 1
Iberia_Northwest_CA_Stp 1
HUN_MA 1
Iberia_Southeast_BA 1
CZE_EBA 1
Bell_Beaker_HUN 1
DEU_Halberstadt_LBA 1
Iberia_Southeast_c.3-4CE 1
DEU_Roman 1
HUN_LBA 1
HRV_Starcevo_N_o 1
Grand Total 234

Percentages:
Bell_Beaker_CZE 10.68%
HUN_MA_Szolad 8.97%
Bell_Beaker_Bavaria 7.26%
ITA_Collegno_MA 4.27%
Iberia_East_IA 3.42%
Iberia_Northeast_BA 2.99%
Iberia_Southeast_c.10-16CE 2.99%
England_MBA 2.56%
Bell_Beaker_Iberia 2.56%
DEU_MA_ACD 2.56%
Iberia_North_BA 2.14%
Iberia_Northeast_c.6CE_PL 2.14%
Bell_Beaker_HUN_EBA 2.14%
Iberia_Central_BA 2.14%
Scythian_HUN 2.14%
England_Roman 2.14%
Scythian_MDA 1.71%
Iberia_Northeast_c.8-12CE 1.71%
Bell_Beaker_Mittelelbe-Saale 1.71%
England_IA 1.71%
Iberia_Northeast_Empuries1 1.71%
BGR_EBA 1.71%
England_CA_EBA 1.71%
DEU_MA 1.71%
England_Saxon 1.71%
Scotland_MBA 1.28%
Scotland_LBA 1.28%
Bell_Beaker_England 1.28%
HUN_BA 1.28%
Other 18.38%

Theconqueror
07-24-2019, 03:42 PM
In my mind, CL94 is a Lombard whose southern portion can be partially captured by Visogothic intake. I don't think CL94 is outrageously out of the Gothic realm. My little 2 cents.

GoldenHind
07-24-2019, 05:09 PM
In my mind, CL94 is a Lombard whose southern portion can be partially captured by Visogothic intake. I don't think CL94 is outrageously out of the Gothic realm. My little 2 cents.

I wonder if a possible Visigothic element is masking what is actually an Ostrogothic element? The Ostrogoths settled in Italy before the arrival of the Lombards, and some of them are said to have joined the Lombards. While the Visigoths sacked Rome in 410 AD, I don't see much evidence that they settled in Italy, but instead moved on to southern Gaul and Iberia. It seems reasonable that both Gothic branches would have shared a common DNA.

GoldenHind
07-24-2019, 06:14 PM
While looking for something else, I stumbled across someone in France with ancestry from the Loire region who has tested DF99>FGC16982>S16136>FGC16979>FGC17024 in the Big Y. I will contact him and ask him to join the DF99 Project.

He has now joined the DF99 Project. His ancestry is from dept. Loire in southeastern France.

GoldenHind
07-28-2019, 06:19 PM
A new DF99 has recently joined the project. He has what appears to be an unusual English surname, and apparently is a descendant of a 17C immigrant to Connecticut. He has a number of same surname matches, none of whom has tested beyond M269.

GoldenHind
07-29-2019, 06:59 PM
I have turned up a couple more people at FTDNA who have tested DF99+ at FTDNA, but are not in either the P312 or DF99 projects.

One has done the Big Y and has a terminal SNP of S15801. He has a German surname.

The other has only tested DF99+. The best I can tell, the ancestral surname comes from a place near Munich in Bavaria.

I have contacted both to ask them to join.

GoldenHind
07-30-2019, 08:11 PM
I have turned up a couple more people at FTDNA who have tested DF99+ at FTDNA, but are not in either the P312 or DF99 projects.

One has done the Big Y and has a terminal SNP of S15801. He has a German surname.



This person has now joined the DF9 Project. His ancestry is from the St. Gallen area in northeastern Switzerland, across Lake Constance/Bodensee from the border with Germany.

GoldenHind
07-31-2019, 12:17 AM
I have turned up a couple more people at FTDNA who have tested DF99+ at FTDNA, but are not in either the P312 or DF99 projects.

The other has only tested DF99+. The best I can tell, the ancestral surname comes from a place near Munich in Bavaria.

I have contacted both to ask them to join.

I have now heard back from the second person. While it is possible that the origin of his surname may be from Bavaria, he tells me he has traced his paternal line back to the late 15th century in Thuringia/Thüringen in Germany. He says he will join the DF99 Project.

rms2
07-31-2019, 06:03 PM
Good to hear of all your progress on DF99.

GoldenHind
08-02-2019, 12:40 AM
Good to hear of all your progress on DF99.

Thanks for the interest from you and a few others outside the DF99 subclade. Many people seem to ignore the importance of the less numerous P312 subclades such as DF99 and L238 to the origins of P312 in general. The fact that they didn't expand in the same way as L21, U152 and DF27 in no way diminishes their importance to the question of the origin of P312. For example it really requires a great deal of special pleading to reconcile the claims for an Iberian origin P312 with the modern day distribution of DF99, L238 and DF19, as they have little or no presence on the Atlantic facade.

I wish we could talk more about aDNA for these subclades, but at present they are few and far between- one Lombard DF99 and one Viking L238. Perhaps some will eventually turn up in Beaker samples, but until they do, I am keeping an open mind whether the minor P312 subclades were part of BB or not.

Theconqueror
08-13-2019, 04:18 PM
Thanks for the interest from you and a few others outside the DF99 subclade. Many people seem to ignore the importance of the less numerous P312 subclades such as DF99 and L238 to the origins of P312 in general. The fact that they didn't expand in the same way as L21, U152 and DF27 in no way diminishes their importance to the question of the origin of P312. For example it really requires a great deal of special pleading to reconcile the claims for an Iberian origin P312 with the modern day distribution of DF99, L238 and DF19, as they have little or no presence on the Atlantic facade.

I wish we could talk more about aDNA for these subclades, but at present they are few and far between- one Lombard DF99 and one Viking L238. Perhaps some will eventually turn up in Beaker samples, but until they do, I am keeping an open mind whether the minor P312 subclades were part of BB or not.

I may have asked this before, but is there any way to discover what's under my FGC16982 without buying one SNP at a time? It looks like there is only two uninteresting choices under my current terminal SNP.

GoldenHind
08-14-2019, 01:11 AM
I may have asked this before, but is there any way to discover what's under my FGC16982 without buying one SNP at a time? It looks like there is only two uninteresting choices under my current terminal SNP.

FGC16982 is currently known to be divided into three subclades: 1) S16136, 2) Y47524 and 3) BY39134. There could be others not yet discovered. S16136 is by far and away the most common, especially in its subclade FGC16979, and is very widespread, particularly in northern Europe. To date both Y47524 and BY39134 are exclusively of English origin, but that could very well be due to the overwhelming over-weighting of people of British ancestry in the FTDNA database.

The best alternative by far would be the Big Y test, which should be the last YDNA test anyone should ever need to take. The Big Y and other NGS testing from other companies is the source for everything we know about the substructure of DF99. It also happens to be on sale this month.

The only other alternative to individual SNP testing is the P312 SNP Pack test. I know it includes S16136 and FGC16979, but I doubt it includes the other two. If you decide to do this and need help on how to order it, let me know.

If you decide to continue individual marker testing, I would recommend you go for FGC16979, as a positive result would also confirm the intermediate marker S16136. I suspect you are likely to be FGC16979+, but can't guarantee it.

Theconqueror
08-14-2019, 03:38 PM
FGC16982 is currently known to be divided into three subclades: 1) S16136, 2) Y47524 and 3) BY39134. There could be others not yet discovered. S16136 is by far and away the most common, especially in its subclade FGC16979, and is very widespread, particularly in northern Europe. To date both Y47524 and BY39134 are exclusively of English origin, but that could very well be due to the overwhelming over-weighting of people of British ancestry in the FTDNA database.

The best alternative by far would be the Big Y test, which should be the last YDNA test anyone should ever need to take. The Big Y and other NGS testing from other companies is the source for everything we know about the substructure of DF99. It also happens to be on sale this month.

The only other alternative to individual SNP testing is the P312 SNP Pack test. I know it includes S16136 and FGC16979, but I doubt it includes the other two. If you decide to do this and need help on how to order it, let me know.

If you decide to continue individual marker testing, I would recommend you go for FGC16979, as a positive result would also confirm the intermediate marker S16136. I suspect you are likely to be FGC16979+, but can't guarantee it.

Thanks for your answer. This is where it becomes uninteresting to purchase anything else than BigY. I am not sure as to why we can't select specific snps under fgc16982 on ftdna.

GoldenHind
08-14-2019, 08:07 PM
Thanks for your answer. This is where it becomes uninteresting to purchase anything else than BigY. I am not sure as to why we can't select specific snps under fgc16982 on ftdna.

As I said, you can order individual tests for S16136 and FGGC16979, both of which are under FGC16982.

My guess is that the others are both too recent and found in too few individuals for FTDNA to have made them available for individual testing, at least for the present.

GoldenHind
09-29-2019, 06:56 PM
Some recent DF99 project news which may be of some interest.

A new member tested DF99>S16982>S16136>BY15507 etc in the Big Y. He has a British patronymic surname in common with a well known American president, found in both Scotland and England, but ancestry only to 19C USA.

Another person tested DF99>FGC16982>S16136>FGC16979 (the most numerous and widespread DF99 subclade) in the Big Y. Unfortunately I know very little about him, not even his surname, as he lists an initial only for his surname. He tested with Igenea, a company located in Switzerland. The FTDNA lab does the actual testing, and the results are incorporated into the FTDNA database. He lists France as his ancestral country of origin, but gives no information about his EKA or even a location in France. I will try to contact him, but to date I have yet to receive a response from anyone who tested with Igenea.

Another recent join appears to have paternal ancestry from Sweden. He has not yet done any SNP testing and is predicted M269 only, but his sole match at 111 markers is to someone of uncertain paternal ancestry (possibly Germany?) who has tested DF99>FGC16982>S16136>BY15507 in the Big Y, and he has a classic DF99 STR signature. I will urge him to at least test for DF99.

GoldenHind
10-08-2019, 07:24 PM
Another person tested DF99>FGC16982>S16136>FGC16979 (the most numerous and widespread DF99 subclade) in the Big Y. Unfortunately I know very little about him, not even his surname, as he lists an initial only for his surname. He tested with Igenea, a company located in Switzerland. The FTDNA lab does the actual testing, and the results are incorporated into the FTDNA database. He lists France as his ancestral country of origin, but gives no information about his EKA or even a location in France. I will try to contact him, but to date I have yet to receive a response from anyone who tested with Igenea.



Rather surprisingly, I have heard back from the Frenchman in question. He tells me his EKA is from the area west of Marseille, but he is currently investigating the possibility that the surname and his ancestral line came to that area from Savoy. We do have another French DF99 from Savoy, which is much closer to the known modern distribution of DF99 in central Europe.

EDIT: Although he has 111 markers, he has no matches above 25 markers.

GoldenHind
11-07-2019, 12:47 AM
I have discovered someone who appears to be in Italy who tested positive for DF99 subclade BY107946 (part of FGC16979), presumably in the Big Y. He has what appears to be a rare Italian surname. At this point, I know nothing else about him. BY107946 and its father FGC55515 appear to be concentrated in the Alpine area. I have contacted him and invited him to join the DF99 project.

GoldenHind
11-12-2019, 12:27 AM
I have discovered someone who appears to be in Italy who tested positive for DF99 subclade BY107946 (part of FGC16979), presumably in the Big Y. He has what appears to be a rare Italian surname. At this point, I know nothing else about him. BY107946 and its father FGC55515 appear to be concentrated in the Alpine area. I have contacted him and invited him to join the DF99 project.

Although I have not yet heard back fro the individual in question, he has now joined the DF99 Project. The information entered there indicates his ancestry (unfortunately no date given for his EKA) is from near Rome.

I checked an Italian surname site on the net and find his very rare Italian surname is found in only three locations in Italy: Veneto, Lombardy and the area in Lazio near Rome where this person's has indicated for his ancestry. This likely suggests a migration from one area to the others from a time since the adoption of surnames.

The date for DF99 in Italy to date shows a very strong cline where the numbers are concentrated in the north and decrease dramatically as one moves to the south from there.

GoldenHind
11-12-2019, 12:29 AM
The DF99 project has now exceeded 175 members. There are a few who don't belong, but there are many more than that who have tested DF99+ who have not joined the project.

GoldenHind
12-07-2019, 12:12 AM
An interesting new DF99 in after testing positive for the BY15507 subclade (DF99>FGC16982>S16136>BY15507) in the Big Y. He is a Czech national with ancestry from Moravia. He has no matches above 25 markers. The only other DF99 person from the Czech Republic to date also has the same terminal SNP as well as ancestry from Moravia, but the two don't have matching STRs at any level, even at 12 markers.

The BY 15507 group is pretty diverse, and includes members with ancestry from England (Kent and the Isle of Wight), Switzerland and Pennsylvania "Dutch", as well as a couple with uncertain ancestry.

According to Wikipedia, Moravia was once home of the Celtic Volcae tribe, who were later displaced by the Quadi, a branch of the Germanic Suebi. While I wouldn't rule out the first possibility, I have noticed that there are a number of DF99 who have ancestry from areas settled by the Suebi.

EDIT: I forgot to add that the BY15507 block contains an additional 14 SNPs beyond BY15507, and that all seven so far in that block share all 14 markers in addition to BY15507. The block is further divided by a couple of downstream markers, but the two Czechs have neither of them.

GoldenHind
12-15-2019, 07:39 PM
A new DF99 from the Big Y, a branch of the FGC16979 subclade (DF99>FGC16982>S16136>FGC16979). Though he only has ancestry to 18C Virginia, the ancestral surname is a rare English one, which according to an internet source has origins in Suffolk. After doing a bit of research, it looks to me like the surname likely derives from the Old Norse personal name Thorgils.

He has several STR matches with the same or variant form surnames.

GoldenHind
12-28-2019, 08:22 PM
I stumbled on a new person who has tested DF99>FGC16982>S16136>FGC16979>BY15482 in the Big Y. He isn't in either the P312 or DF99 projects. I have sent him an email but have had no response as yet. He lists Ireland for his ancestral country of origin. However he has a same surname DNA match who instead gives a specific location in Montgomeryshire in Wales. DF99 has proved to be exceedingly rare in Ireland, so far limited to a couple of families from Ulster with English surnames. In any case, according to Reaney [The Oxford Dictionary of English Surnames, 3rd. Rev. Ed.], his surname is English, a shortening of the personal name Philipot, "little Philip."

GoldenHind
01-01-2020, 10:18 PM
For those who haven't seen it, Mitchell[etc.] reported on another thread that the DF99 Project has grown from 141 to 191 in the course of 2019, an increase of over 35%. The FTDNA public haplotree database shows those who have tested DF99+ increased over 21% to 192 over the year. By way of an explanation, there are a significant number of DF99 project members whose markers and matches make it highly probable they are DF99, but they haven't yet confirmed that. On the other hand, there is a fair number of individuals who have tested DF99+ but haven't joined the project.

GoldenHind
02-06-2020, 06:55 PM
I stumbled on a new person who has tested DF99>FGC16982>S16136>FGC16979>BY15482 in the Big Y. He isn't in either the P312 or DF99 projects. I have sent him an email but have had no response as yet. He lists Ireland for his ancestral country of origin. However he has a same surname DNA match who instead gives a specific location in Montgomeryshire in Wales. DF99 has proved to be exceedingly rare in Ireland, so far limited to a couple of families from Ulster with English surnames. In any case, according to Reaney [The Oxford Dictionary of English Surnames, 3rd. Rev. Ed.], his surname is English, a shortening of the personal name Philipot, "little Philip."

He is now in both the P312 and DF99 projects, though I still haven't heard from him.

GoldenHind
02-09-2020, 12:32 AM
An extremely interesting new DF99 from the Big Y. He is third Czech national to have the same terminal SNP [DF99>S16982>S16136>FGC16979>BY15507>FGC72205>BY65827]. However all three have different surnames, different EKAs, and do not have not matching STRs at 37 markers or above. The new individual has only one match at 67 markers (GD 7), and that is to someone who has what I believe is a Polish name (possibly part of the Polish nobility or gentry?) with ancestry back to the 15C in Poland. He also has only two matches at 37 markers, both of whom have what appears to be a Polish surname. All three Czechs appear to be from the province of Moravia in the Czech Republic.

So it appears that there is a presence of DF99 in the Moravia and probably Poland as well. They all have Slavic as opposed to German surnames, so I don't think they are likely to be descendants of medieval settlers from Germany. Does this indicate an early presence of DF99 in eastern Europe? However it should be pointed out that the BY15507 subclade includes men with ancestry from southern England and Switzerland (German surname) as well as the three Czechs.

Roaring
02-13-2020, 10:20 PM
An extremely interesting new DF99 from the Big Y. He is third Czech national to have the same terminal SNP [DF99>S16982>S16136>FGC16979>BY15507>FGC72205>BY65827]. However all three have different surnames, different EKAs, and do not have not matching STRs at 37 markers or above. The new individual has only one match at 67 markers (GD 7), and that is to someone who has what I believe is a Polish name (possibly part of the Polish nobility or gentry?) with ancestry back to the 15C in Poland. He also has only two matches at 37 markers, both of whom have what appears to be a Polish surname. All three Czechs appear to be from the province of Moravia in the Czech Republic.

So it appears that there is a presence of DF99 in the Moravia and probably Poland as well. They all have Slavic as opposed to German surnames, so I don't think they are likely to be descendants of medieval settlers from Germany. Does this indicate an early presence of DF99 in eastern Europe? However it should be pointed out that the BY15507 subclade includes men with ancestry from southern England and Switzerland (German surname) as well as the three Czechs.

Well i would still bet on Germanics, Slavic-Germanic relations in Czechia predate adoption of surnames by a few centuries.

GoldenHind
02-14-2020, 08:04 PM
Well i would still bet on Germanics, Slavic-Germanic relations in Czechia predate adoption of surnames by a few centuries.

It is certainly a possibility, and I wouldn't bet against it. I have mentioned before that the Celts were replaced by the Germanic Quadi tribe in the first century BC in Moravia, where the three DF99 Czechs all hail from. However that doesn't explain a possible (though at this point unconfirmed) presence of DF99 in the Poles. I think there are numerous possible explanations, including a remnant from the early Bronze Age, and I wouldn't rule any of them out at this point.

GoldenHind
02-18-2020, 12:32 AM
The DF99 project at FTDNA reached 200 members today. We have come a long way from the original 3 first confirmed to have the marker in 2013, though the project wasn't formed until later.

GoldenHind
05-17-2020, 07:40 PM
FTDNA seems to have gone through DF99 Big Y 700 results (now apparently 70 in number?) and refined the DF99 tree. There are a number of changes I am still trying to digest. One of interest is that they have found a marker (Z29643) that unites two of the three previously known DF99 subclades, namely FGC16982 and FGC847. Thus technically there are now only two subclades directly below DF99: 1) BY3450 and 2) Z29643, which contains both FGC847 and FGC16982.

GoldenHind
05-24-2020, 08:57 PM
I have discovered that someone who appears to be in France did a Big Y test from Igenea (these are done by the FTDNA lab and incorporated into their database) in Switzerland and tested DF99>Z29643>FGC847>FGC7556>FGC864>BY152555>BY152657. I do not know his surname (he is listed only by initials) and I do not know where in France his ancestors were located. I have tried to contact him through Igenea, which has not been very fruitful in the past. To date the DF99 marker appears to be very are in France, found only along the perimeter.

Theconqueror
05-27-2020, 11:32 AM
On that note, do we know of any individuals from the new study on France who are DF99?

GoldenHind
05-27-2020, 04:49 PM
On that note, do we know of any individuals from the new study on France who are DF99?

Not that I've heard of, but I don't know if any have results for that marker.

GoldenHind
05-29-2020, 10:39 PM
AFAIK there were no DF99s in the recent study of ancient DNA in Ireland either.

I doubt the western part of Europe (ie west of the Rhine on the continent and the British Isles and Ireland) is a likely place to look for DF99 prior to the beginning of the Migration Age. It's not impossible- there could be a few outliers. My guess is that central and especially north central Europe would be a far better target.

GoldenHind
06-01-2020, 07:14 PM
I had occasion to look at the DF99 numbers on the FTDNA public haplotree yesterday, and I thought some may be interested in the latest results. There are a total of 210 men who have tested positive for the DF99 marker. In the list of ancestral countries of origin (these are of course self reported), the largest category was "Unknown" at 53. Second was England at 34 closely followed by Germany at third with 29. Then there is large drop off with a tie for fourth at 12 each for Switzerland, France and the USA. Another tie at fifth with Italy and the UK at 10 each. Another tie at sixth with Sweden, Denmark, Wales, Canada and Ireland with 3 each, followed by another tie with Mexico, Poland, Russia and Northern Ireland at 2 each. Finally there were 10 from countries in much of both western and eastern Europe with one each.

I suspect that most of those who listed the UK or Canada are actually of English origin. The unknown and USA category undoubtedly includes some with German or Swiss ancestry who were early colonists in America, but is probably primarily composed of those with American colonial ancestry from England.

When looking at this sort of thing, one must always keep in mind the enormous over weighting in the FTDNA database of those with ancestry from the British Isles and Ireland.

EDIT: I inadvertently omitted the Czech Republic with 5.

Dewsloth
06-01-2020, 07:30 PM
It's always possible the Canadians could include populations like Huguenots and/or Hessians as well as the English.

Any thoughts as to how to correct/adjust for the UK over-reporting frequency? I run into something similar with DF19 (below in spoiler) which, in overall distribution, really isn't that different than DF99.


England 87 19.21%
Germany 85 18.76%
Scotland 75 16.56%
United States 53 11.70%
Ireland 31 6.84%
United Kingdom 23 5.08%
Belgium 14 3.09%
Netherlands 13 2.87%
France 12 2.65%
Northern Ireland 8 1.77%
Norway 7 1.55%
Sweden 7 1.55%
Canada 6 1.32%
Wales 6 1.32%
United States (Native American) 4 0.88%
Poland 4 0.88%
Czech Republic 4 0.88%
Switzerland 3 0.66%
Austria 2 0.44%
Denmark 2 0.44%
Italy 2 0.44%
Luxembourg 1 0.22%
Portugal 1 0.22%
Guyana 1 0.22%
Russian Federation 1 0.22%
Isle of Man 1 0.22%
Unknown Origin 449 **

GoldenHind
06-02-2020, 06:39 PM
Any thoughts as to how to correct/adjust for the UK over-reporting frequency? I run into something similar with DF19 (below in spoiler) which, in overall distribution, really isn't that different than DF99.


England 87 19.21%
Germany 85 18.76%
Scotland 75 16.56%
United States 53 11.70%
Ireland 31 6.84%
United Kingdom 23 5.08%
Belgium 14 3.09%
Netherlands 13 2.87%
France 12 2.65%
Northern Ireland 8 1.77%
Norway 7 1.55%
Sweden 7 1.55%
Canada 6 1.32%
Wales 6 1.32%
United States (Native American) 4 0.88%
Poland 4 0.88%
Czech Republic 4 0.88%
Switzerland 3 0.66%
Austria 2 0.44%
Denmark 2 0.44%
Italy 2 0.44%
Luxembourg 1 0.22%
Portugal 1 0.22%
Guyana 1 0.22%
Russian Federation 1 0.22%
Isle of Man 1 0.22%
Unknown Origin 449 **

A few years ago I ran some calculations comparing the indicated ancestral country of origin of those in the FTDNA YDNA database against the current population of those countries. I was astonished how large the imbalance was. Ireland had by far the greatest representation, followed by Scotland. Calculating the numbers for Great Britain was somewhat complicated by the fact that FTDNA lists separate categories for England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and another for the UK in general. Germany had the highest representation of any continental country, yet the proportional rate for Germany was only one fifth of the combined total for all the United Kingdom categories. The rate for Germany was even smaller when compared to the rate for Ireland.

In other words, to equalize the comparison between the UK and Germany, you would have to add up the total from all the UK categories, and then compare it to the figures for Germany multiplied by a factor of five. The multiplier would be even higher for other continental countries.

While I did these calculations several years ago, I doubt the proportions have changed much in the meantime.

I have noticed that there is a great deal of similarity between the modern distributions of DF19 and DF99. One glaring difference is Scotland, where DF19 is well represented while to date at least DF99 is largely absent.

MitchellSince1893
06-02-2020, 10:19 PM
Then there’s the problem of which timeframe to use to make a correction. Ireland in 1841 had over 8 million people compared to 4.2 million in 1931.

GoldenHind
06-03-2020, 07:25 PM
Then there’s the problem of which timeframe to use to make a correction. Ireland in 1841 had over 8 million people compared to 4.2 million in 1931.

Doubtless that is due to the Great Potato Famine and subsequent large scale migration to the USA. To be consistent I used present day population figures for all countries: 4.8 million for Ireland. But even if one doubled the population for Ireland to the 1841 level it would not eliminate the enormous over-weighting of Irish ancestry in the FTDNA database.

At the time I did the calculations, the FTDNA samples with indicated Irish ancestry was 22,500. Scotland was second: 17,000 FTDNA entries with a population of 5.3 million. Sweden for example, with a population (9.7 million) about double that of Ireland or Scotland, had only 3500 entries at FTDNA. I calculated that to equal the proportional rate of Ireland, the FTDNA samples with Swedish ancestry would have to increase from 3500 to over 45,000. If one doubled the population for Ireland to the 1841 level, it would still be smaller than the population of Ireland, and the Swedish samples would have to increase from 3500 to a sum greater than Ireland's 22,500 to have an equal proportionality. And Sweden had a higher proportional representation at FTDNA than either Denmark and Norway.

As I said, I did these calculations a few years ago, but I doubt the proportions have changed much if at all.

MitchellSince1893
06-03-2020, 10:36 PM
Not sure how it would be implemented/factored in as a correction. But as there’s a definite US bias in the FTDNA Database:

In US 2010 census there were 308.7 million People.

49.8 million identified as German American
35.8 million identified as Irish American
27.4 million identified as English American
17.6 million identified as Italian American

GOM
06-04-2020, 01:04 AM
I have noticed that there is a great deal of similarity between the modern distributions of DF19 and DF99. One glaring difference is Scotland, where DF19 is well represented while to date at least DF99 is largely absent.

I recently posted a method of calculating SNP distributions corrected for both the population of each country and the propensity of its citizens to undertake FTDNA tests (see https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?988-DF19-(P312-gt-DF19)-amp-Subclades-L644-Z302-etc&p=672466#post672466). Please bear in mind that this methodology can still be biased by the willingness of particular families to undertake DNA tests. I listed there the statistics for DF19 and a map, but here's the results for DF99:

Distribution of DF99 in Europe

County DF99_n DF99/P312%
Slovakia 1 10.00
Luxembourg 1 9.09
Czech Republic 5 8.77
Denmark 3 4.23
Russian Federation 2 3.85
Switzerland 12 3.44
Germany 29 2.76
Ukraine 1 2.70
Italy 10 2.56
Austria 1 1.96
Poland 2 1.57
France 12 1.13
England 34 1.09
Sweden 3 1.07
Belgium 1 0.94
United Kingdom 10 0.77
Netherlands 1 0.66
Wales 3 0.62
Northern Ireland 2 0.37
Portugal 1 0.36
Spain 1 0.15
Ireland 3 0.05
Scotland 1 0.03
Unknown Origin 53 0.31
Total 192

Here's a map showing the distribution of DF99 as a percentage of P312 in Europe:

37867

Slovakia and Luxembourg should not be seen as the hotspots they appear to be, as each is based on only one test. Unfortunately the various countries comprising the United Kingdom are hard to present, as many locations are just reported as UK. Nevertheless Scotland has the lowest percentage of DF99 (0.03% of P312 despite representing 53 tests) while it is relatively high in DF19 (2.4% of P312 from 75 tests). Here's a map of DF19 for comparison:

37868

The DF19 distribution seems much more coherent and strongly supports the suspected northern Germany/southern Scandinavia origin for DF19.

MitchellSince1893
06-04-2020, 01:30 PM
Last year, I did an analysis of R1b subclades starting here and going to post 52
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?11364-FTDNA-R1b-Project-Maps&p=615793&viewfull=1#post615793

Post 51 has data for smaller subclades https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?11364-FTDNA-R1b-Project-Maps&p=616437&viewfull=1#post616437

GoldenHind
06-04-2020, 06:15 PM
I recently posted a method of calculating SNP distributions corrected for both the population of each country and the propensity of its citizens to undertake FTDNA tests (see https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?988-DF19-(P312-gt-DF19)-amp-Subclades-L644-Z302-etc&p=672466#post672466). Please bear in mind that this methodology can still be biased by the willingness of particular families to undertake DNA tests. I listed there the statistics for DF19 and a map, but here's the results for DF99:



The DF19 distribution seems much more coherent and strongly supports the suspected northern Germany/southern Scandinavia origin for DF19.

Your maps show that DF99 appears to be geographically more diverse and less concentrated than DF19. However because of the small numbers of DF99 involved, I wouldn't make too much out of it. I note though that if you make a circle around the countries on your map with the highest concentrations of DF99- Denmark, Luxembourg, Switzerland, and the former Czechoslovakia (prior to division), the center of the circle, which might indicate an expansion point, is somewhere in central Germany, and not much different from the center of DF19.

These sort of distribution maps can lead one astray, as modern distributions do not necessarily indicate the location of the origin of the marker in question. At one time there were many who believed that the concentration of L21 in Ireland and Britain established that subclade must have originated there. I don't think there are many who still believe that.

GOM
06-06-2020, 01:52 AM
Last year, I did an analysis of R1b subclades starting here and going to post 52
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?11364-FTDNA-R1b-Project-Maps&p=615793&viewfull=1#post615793

Post 51 has data for smaller subclades https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?11364-FTDNA-R1b-Project-Maps&p=616437&viewfull=1#post616437

Thanks M. I rather thought I must have been re-inventing the wheel.

MitchellSince1893
06-06-2020, 03:20 AM
Thanks M. I rather thought I must have been re-inventing the wheel.

Your subclade vs P312 % approach for each country chart is unique/original. :thumb:

https://anthrogenica.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=37838&d=1591079390

GOM
06-07-2020, 02:10 AM
Your subclade vs P312 % approach for each country chart is unique/original. :thumb:

I think the chart is really just reflecting what is evident on the map I posted for DF19. There is a clear distinction between the northern countries where DF19 averages 5.8% of P312 and the southern countries which average 0.7% of P312. The British Isles are a mixture of the two, with DF19/P312 averaging 1.7%. Here's the DF19 map again:

37915

For DF99 I can't see a consistent pattern on the map. High and low DF99 countries are scattered amongst each other:

37916

As a result, when I repeat the chart for DF99 I can't see consistent patterns:

37917

Please bear in mind that we are dealing with low numbers here so these patterns may not hold up over time. For DF19 there are 338 tests represented, but only 139 for DF99. Also there is the statistical problem where some testers will have a result for P312 but not for any lower sub-clades, artificially boosting the number of P312 results. I checked this factor for DF19 and it didn't affect the result greatly.

It does seem that at least for DF19 the genetic history of the northern countries has been distinctly different from that of the southern countries. At this stage I don't have sufficient knowledge to speculate why this may be.

GoldenHind
09-22-2020, 07:59 PM
We now have Big Y results for all seven men from Moravia in the Czech Republic in the DF99 Project. This is due to the very energetic efforts of one of them to identify and recruit the others.

All seven, some of whom share the same surname while others do not, are DF99>Z229643>FGC16982>S16136>BY15507>FGC72295>BY65827. The latter block includes 20 SNPs. Beyond that there is some divergence. Six of the seven also have FT129506, while one does not. Four of the seven with FT129506 also have BY62099, a block with a total of 10 SNPs, while two do not.

I am not entirely certain what to make of this, but off hand I would say that their ancestors have probably been in that area for at least a thousand years. The BY15507 block contains 17 SNPs and includes men with ancestry from Germany and southern England as well as this Czech group, which may give a clue to their origin.

GoldenHind
09-24-2020, 06:48 PM
I was contacted today by a man in Germany who has tested DF99+ with Igenea. Igenea is a DNA testing company in Switzerland. However the DNA testing is performed by the FTDNA lab, and their results are incorporated in the FTDNA database, identified only by an Igenea number.

He tells me his ancestry goes back to 1700 in Pomerania/Pommern, which is located on the southern coast of the Baltic Sea. Most of it was awarded to Poland after WW2. We do have other DF99 from the same area.

I have invited him to join the DF99 Project at FTDNA.

Telfermagne
09-27-2020, 06:11 PM
Looks like my clade has been updated again, now its R-FT49882.

Roaring
09-27-2020, 09:31 PM
I was contacted today by a man in Germany who has tested DF99+ with Igenea. Igenea is a DNA testing company in Switzerland. However the DNA testing is performed by the FTDNA lab, and their results are incorporated in the FTDNA database, identified only by an Igenea number.

He tells me his ancestry goes back to 1700 in Pomerania/Pommern, which is located on the southern coast of the Baltic Sea. Most of it was awarded to Poland after WW2. We do have other DF99 from the same area.

I have invited him to join the DF99 Project at FTDNA.


Have you seen it?

From upcoming Reich lab paper.
All samples were 1240K sequenced at Reich Lab, so they are SNP confirmed.

Viminacium - 28 (labeled Serbia_Roman):

E x 13 (L618 x 6; L618>V13 x 3; Z830 x 1; Z830>M123 x 1; Z1902 x 1; M96 x 1)



G x 5 (PF3148 x 1; PF3148>L91 x 1; P303 x 1; L497 x 1; L497>Z1815 x 1)

R1b x 3 (Z2103 x 1; U106 x 1; U152>L2>Z367 x 1)

R1a x 2 (Z2124>Z2122 x 1; Z2124>Z2123 x 1)

J x 2 (M304 x 1; L24 x 1)

T x 1 (M184)

I1 x 1 (M253)

I2 x 1 (L596)


Timacum Minus, Slog necropolis - 10 (labeled Serbia_Roman):

E x 3 (M35 x 1; L618 x 1; L618>V13 x 1)

J x 3 (M304 x 1; M410 x 1; M241 x 1)

R1b x 2 (Z2103 x 1; Z2103>CTS1450 x 1)

G x 1 (CTS342>FGC12126)

I1 x 1 (Z58>CTS8647)


Timacum Minus, Kuline necropolis - 5 (labeled Serbia_Early_Middle_Age):

I2 x 2 (M423 x 2)

E x 1 (L618)

J x 1 (M304)

R1b x 1 (P312>DF99)


Lepenski Vir - 2:

E x 1 (M35) - Serbia_Roman

J x 1 (M102) - Serbia_Medieval


Mediana - 2 (labeled Serbia_Gepid):

G x 1 (P287)

I1 x 1 (Z58>CTS8647)


Gomolava - 1 (labeled Serbia_Medieval):

I2 x 1 (M423>L621>CTS4002)


If this rumors are true we will have Early Medieval DF-99 in Serbia.

Telfermagne
09-28-2020, 11:51 AM
If the rumor is true, I'd cut off my ears to know the subclade.

Roaring
09-28-2020, 02:28 PM
If the rumor is true, I'd cut off my ears to know the subclade.

Were there Germanic tribes in Serbia? I know about Gots in Albania, but haven't heard much of Serbia.

Edit: Although if we follow the origins of Serbs from White Serbians, (modern sorbians) it's pretty easy to imagine that some germanic clades may have been assimilated back before the migration to Balkans. Anyway autosomals will show the better picture.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_hypotheses_of_the_Serbs#/media/File%3AWhite_serbia_white_croatia01.png

Telfermagne
09-28-2020, 05:24 PM
I have no idea tbh. I know the Romans had a presence due to Illyricum and Moesia, so it's possible that auxillary troops from Germania or Gallia could be responsible, I have no way to really prove/disprove such a speculation though. It will be swell when Global25 coordinates become available for these guys to see where they fit on a neighbor joining tree and PCA.

GoldenHind
09-29-2020, 04:19 PM
I'm not entirely sure what Early Middle Ages means. 6th century AD or 12th century AD? We need a more specific date.

GoldenHind
09-29-2020, 08:01 PM
An article about Timacum Minus and its necropolis:

https://www.muzejknjazevac.org.rs/en/facilities/timacum-minus

It was a fortress built by the Romans around the first cent. AD, which was later destroyed by Barbarian invasions on several occasions from the 3rd to the middle of the 5th century. The most recent layer of the necropolis dates from the the 9th to 10th centuries, and I suspect that is probably where the DF99 man was found.

GoldenHind
09-29-2020, 08:40 PM
Looks like my clade has been updated again, now its R-FT49882.

That is because someone else in the DF99>Z29643>FGC847>FGC7556>FGC858>BY21739 category has now also tested positive for FT49882, presumably in the Big Y. I don't know who he is. He doesn't appear to be in the FTDNA DF99 project. He lists unknown for his origins. I wish I knew who it is.

I now need to revise my DF99 tree once again.

Pribislav
09-29-2020, 09:13 PM
An article about Timacum Minus and its necropolis:

https://www.muzejknjazevac.org.rs/en/facilities/timacum-minus

It was a fortress built by the Romans around the first cent. AD, which was later destroyed by Barbarian invasions on several occasions from the 3rd to the middle of the 5th century. The most recent layer of the necropolis dates from the the 9th to 10th centuries, and I suspect that is probably where the DF99 man was found.

DF99 sample is actually from Kuline necropolis, which was in use ~450-700 AD.

GoldenHind
09-30-2020, 05:02 PM
DF99 sample is actually from Kuline necropolis, which was in use ~450-700 AD.

Can you provide any additional background on the Kuline necropolis?

Pribislav
09-30-2020, 06:11 PM
Can you provide any additional background on the Kuline necropolis?

AFAIK there is no literature on Kuline necropolis in English, but you can find some basic info using Google translate in this article, which focuses mainly on anthropological analysis:

Early_Medieval_necropolis_on_the_site_Timacum_Minu s_Kuline (https://www.academia.edu/8234190/%D0%A0%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B4%D 1%9A%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0% B0_%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B B%D0%B0_%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%B B%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%83_Timacum_Minus_%D0% 9A%D1%83%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B5_Early_Medieval_ne cropolis_on_the_site_Timacum_Minus_Kuline)

In short, nine graves were excavated from this necropolis, six of which were subjected to aDNA analysis. There were no weapons or other valuable items in any of the graves. Sample I15538 is from the grave no.2, his mtDNA haplogroup is H1e1a6 and his Y-haplogroup is R1b1a1a2a1a2f (DF99). Here's the plan of the necropolis with mt and Y-haplogroups:

39927

Roaring
10-01-2020, 02:28 PM
AFAIK there is no literature on Kuline necropolis in English, but you can find some basic info using Google translate in this article, which focuses mainly on anthropological analysis:

Early_Medieval_necropolis_on_the_site_Timacum_Minu s_Kuline (https://www.academia.edu/8234190/%D0%A0%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B4%D 1%9A%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0% B0_%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B B%D0%B0_%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%B B%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%83_Timacum_Minus_%D0% 9A%D1%83%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B5_Early_Medieval_ne cropolis_on_the_site_Timacum_Minus_Kuline)

In short, nine graves were excavated from this necropolis, six of which were subjected to aDNA analysis. There were no weapons or other valuable items in any of the graves. Sample I15538 is from the grave no.2, his mtDNA haplogroup is H1e1a6 and his Y-haplogroup is R1b1a1a2a1a2f (DF99). Here's the plan of the necropolis with mt and Y-haplogroups:

39927

Was there an anthropological analys of the skeleton?

GoldenHind
10-03-2020, 08:22 PM
I had some difficulty downloading and translating the cited article. However I did get the following excerpts:

"The necropolis from the interior of the fortress on the site of Timacum Magnis- Kuline can be approximately dated from the mid 5th to the end of the 9th century AD after the stratigraphy of the cultural layers.

Dating is even more difficult due to the fact that that the necropolis is only partially researched and in the discovered graves there were no offerings. After the comparative analyses we conducted, we conclude that these individuals differ very much after morphological and metrical elements, after their body height and paleopathogical changes, from the members of the Antique and medieval population buried buried on the nearby necropolis Slog. Unlike them, deceased buried on the Podina necropolis are anthropologically very close. Also, we may note, after the extreme robusticity of the body, epigenetic traits that on the Kuline were buried the members of the same tribal-blood related community, which is a characteristic of the Great Migration period. After some warrior injuries and markers of occupational stress, it may be assumed that they often took part in battles and that they were light armed horsemen. However more precise dates and more data on the population itself can be provided by further investigation of the necropolis."

Perhaps someone else can get more information from the article.

Theconqueror
10-06-2020, 03:51 PM
Fascinating. Zolad to Kuline is a 10 hour drive :-) Zolad is on the path of the early middle age slavic migration from the north.

GoldenHind
10-06-2020, 08:44 PM
One of our project members says that two DF99+ samples have been identified among the recent sampling of Viking Age results.

VK336 Oland, Sweden 853+/- 67 CE/ R-BY106906 [which is under DF99>S16982>S16136>FGC16979>FGC55515]
VK369 Bakkendrup, Sealand, Denmark 850-900 CE / FGC7556 [which has an equivalent position with FGC846 under DF99>FGC847]

I am awaiting confirmation.

Frithnanth
10-07-2020, 12:42 AM
One of our project members says that two DF99+ samples have been identified among the recent sampling of Viking Age results.

VK336 Oland, Sweden 853+/- 67 CE/ R-BY106906 [which is under DF99>S16982>S16136>FGC16979>FGC55515]
VK369 Bakkendrup, Sealand, Denmark 850-900 CE / FGC7556 [which has an equivalent position with FGC846 under DF99>FGC847]

I am awaiting confirmation.

It seems these samples are already on YFull:

https://yfull.com/tree/R-Y2832/

https://yfull.com/tree/R-S16136/

Webb
10-07-2020, 02:05 PM
One of our project members says that two DF99+ samples have been identified among the recent sampling of Viking Age results.

VK336 Oland, Sweden 853+/- 67 CE/ R-BY106906 [which is under DF99>S16982>S16136>FGC16979>FGC55515]
VK369 Bakkendrup, Sealand, Denmark 850-900 CE / FGC7556 [which has an equivalent position with FGC846 under DF99>FGC847]

I am awaiting confirmation.

They are also on the Block Tree at FTDNA. However, with sample VK369, it states, "Shares 13 SNPs with an American. Forms a new branch down of R-FGC7556 (DF99). New branch = R-FT108043".

This is a link to Roberta Estes Blog where she lists the FTDNA placement of all the samples:

https://dna-explained.com/2020/09/18/442-ancient-viking-skeletons-hold-dna-surprises-does-your-y-or-mitochondrial-dna-match-daily-updates-here/


Also to note, the Block Tree at FTDNA shows FGC84729 as the parent block of both DF99 and ZZ37_1.

GoldenHind
10-07-2020, 09:44 PM
Thanks to Webb, Frithnarth and especially to Roberta Estes for confirming the data on the DF99 samples from the Viking study. Oland (VK336) is an island in the Baltic off the southeast coast of Sweden, and Bakkendrup (VK369) is on the western side of the primary Danish island of Seeland/Sjćlland, near Gřrlev. So we now have proof that at least two of the three DF99 subclades were present in Scandinavia in the 9th century AD during the Viking era.

It is probably not coincidental that the other two ancient DF99 samples were both found in graveyards associated with the migration of Germanic tribes from the north during the Migration Age (Collegno near Turin in northern Italy and Timacum Minus-Kuline in Serbia).

Theconqueror
10-09-2020, 05:07 AM
Vk336 is close to CL102, CL53, and SZ18, SZ45 autosomally, close to Swiss German.

GoldenHind
10-17-2020, 05:08 PM
Vk336 is close to CL102, CL53, and SZ18, SZ45 autosomally, close to Swiss German.

For what it's worth, German speakers in Switzerland apparently arrived in the Migration age with the Alemanni, which was a confederation of Germanic tribes.

Telfermagne
10-19-2020, 07:22 PM
Looks like FT49882 split, me and an adjacent branch that is German & Unknown (Z34586).

40412

Roaring
10-22-2020, 08:00 PM
For what it's worth, German speakers in Switzerland apparently arrived in the Migration age with the Alemanni, which was a confederation of Germanic tribes.

It most likely means that he had arrived to Sweden from Alpine area, or one of his ancestors was of south-euro origin.

Theconqueror
10-25-2020, 05:18 PM
It most likely means that he had arrived to Sweden from Alpine area, or one of his ancestors was of south-euro origin.

It probably means that other DF99 individuals, with similar autosomal, continued down with other Germanic tribes in the migration period. These guys' line stayed back in northern Germany/Denmark. All in all, DF99 is Germanic.

Theconqueror
10-25-2020, 05:25 PM
Distance to: VK2020_DNK_Sealand_VA:VK369
0.02297623
VK2020_DNK_Jutland_VA:VK326
0.02310805
VK2020_DNK_Langeland_VA:VK317
0.02481539
VK2020_England_Oxford_VA:VK150
0.02496836
VK2020_SWE_Karda_VA:VK266
0.02668912
VK2020_RUS_Ladoga_VA:VK218
0.02684464
VK2020_DNK_Jutland_VA:VK329
0.02719843
VK2020_DNK_Jutland_VA:VK84
0.02805085
FRA_IA:BFM265
0.02870442
VK2020_DNK_Langeland_VA:VK363
0.02894826
VK2020_SWE_Skara_VA:VK403
0.02898515
VK2020_SWE_Skara_VA:VK398
0.02927356
VK2020_DNK_Jutland_VA:VK87
0.02976342
VK2020_DNK_Jutland_VA:VK322
0.03001532
VK2020_England_Dorset_VA:VK261
0.03016118
ITA_Rome_Renaissance:RMPR1220
0.03062134
VK2020_DNK_Funen_VA:VK138
0.03065406
VK2020_SWE_Oland_VA:VK442
0.03074506
ITA_Rome_Renaissance:RMPR1224
0.03074630
CZE_EBA:I7196
0.03081226
HUN_MA_Szolad:SZ38
0.03115940
VK2020_DNK_Funen_VA:VK280
0.03133900
VK2020_SWE_Oland_VA:VK357
0.03154796
Bell_Beaker_CZE:I4888
0.03172114
VK2020_SWE_Skara_VA:VK402
0.03173730
VK2020_DNK_Funen_VA:VK319
0.03177622
VK2020_DNK_Jutland_VA:VK330
0.03186340
VK2020_ISL_Hofstadir_VA:VK123
0.03189835
VK2020_ISL_Hofstadir_VA:VK111
0.03193569
Bell_Beaker_FRA_C:I3874
0.03210653
VK2020_DNK_Langeland_VA:VK368
0.03223481
VK2020_SWE_Oland_VA:VK350
0.03227650
ITA_Collegno_MA:CL63
0.03245365
VK2020_DNK_Sealand_VA:VK385
0.03249267
VK2020_ISL_Hofstadir_VA:VK95
0.03253299
VK2020_DNK_Sealand_EVA:VK65
0.03298621
ITA_Collegno_MA:CL83
0.03309654
VK2020_ISL_Hofstadir_VA:VK110
0.03312888
ITA_Collegno_MA:CL87
0.03320255
VK2020_SWE_Gotland_VA:VK450
0.03327096
VK2020_SWE_Oland_VA:VK333
0.03339755
VK2020_SWE_Karda_VA:VK265
0.03349547
ITA_Rome_MA:RMPR1288
0.03363353
ITA_Rome_Imperial:RMPR116
0.03376169
VK2020_NOR_Mid_MA:VK114
0.03390705
VK2020_England_Oxford_VA:VK173
0.03400368
HUN_MA_Szolad:SZ14
0.03402775
VK2020_ISL_Hofstadir_VA:VK101
0.03416023
England_Roman:6DT23
0.03424478
HUN_MA_Szolad:SZ42
0.03443021
VK2020_DNK_Langeland_VA:VK365
0.03454155
Bell_Beaker_Bavaria:I5529
0.03465731
Bell_Beaker_Bavaria:I6590
0.03487125
VK2020_DNK_Jutland_VA:VK328
0.03517040
VK2020_NOR_North_VA:VK530
0.03533058
VK2020_SWE_Gotland_VA:VK468
0.03552084
HUN_MA_Szolad:SZ23
0.03555858
Bell_Beaker_CZE:I4889
0.03572331
DEU_Singen_EBA:MX252
0.03574644
FRA_IA:Jeb8
0.03577653
VK2020_NOR_South_VA:VK448
0.03587718
Levant_LBN_MA_o2:SI-47
0.03597303
ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity:RMPR106
0.03600374
VK2020_SWE_Skara_VA:VK31
0.03616279
CHE_EBA:SX23
0.03635937
ITA_Rome_Renaissance:RMPR1219
0.03636165
ITA_Collegno_MA:CL84
0.03651260
HUN_MA_Szolad:SZ45
0.03655464
VK2020_SWE_Skara_VA:VK42
0.03661364
Bell_Beaker_Mittelelbe-Saale:I0113
0.03679804
VK2020_GreenlandE_VA:VK6
0.03708684
VK2020_Scotland_Orkney_VA:VK207
0.03718875
VK2020_ISL_Hringsdalur_VA:VK127
0.03723277
England_Roman:6DT22
0.03725327
ISL_Viking_Age_Pre_Christian:SBT-A-1
0.03731302
VK2020_NOR_Mid_MA:VK118
0.03763787
VK2020_SWE_Skara_VA:VK424
0.03784784
Iberia_Central_CA_Stp:EHU001
0.03794511
VK2020_Faroes_EM:VK242
0.03840173
VK2020_IRL_Dublin_VA:VK545
0.03846762
England_Roman:6DT18
0.03851355
Bell_Beaker_CZE:I7275
0.03855816
VK2020_SWE_Oland_VA:VK336
0.03870635
VK2020_NOR_North_VA:VK528
0.03871774
VK2020_Faroes_EM:VK237
0.03876866
England_Saxon:I0161
0.03880550
Bell_Beaker_England:I1767
0.03883999
HUN_MA_Szolad:SZ30
0.03904177
DEU_Lech_EBA:AITI_2
0.03906806
SWE_Viking_Age_Sigtuna:vik_grt035
0.03916579
VK2020_SWE_Oland_VA:VK349
0.03930757
England_Roman:S14491
0.03933583
England_Saxon:I0774
0.03935521
VK2020_SWE_Gotland_VA:VK63
0.03936097
Iberia_Northeast_c.6-8CE_ES:I3777
0.03937483
England_IA:I0160
0.03938920
ITA_Collegno_MA:CL102
0.03941646
DEU_MA_ACD:STR_220
0.03941761
ITA_Rome_MA:RMPR1286
0.03958152
ITA_Collegno_MA:CL47
0.03962563
Bell_Beaker_CZE:I7269

clear output
max output number: add gradient - yes
gradient from: gradient to:
run all
VK2020_DNK_Sealand_VA:VK369

Theconqueror
10-25-2020, 05:34 PM
Distance to: VK2020_SWE_Oland_VA:VK336
0.02475338
VK2020_DNK_Jutland_VA:VK84
0.02576891
ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity:RMPR108
0.02656711
ITA_Collegno_MA:CL102
0.02696910
DEU_Lech_EBA:AITI_119
0.02853484
VK2020_DNK_Jutland_VA:VK330
0.02904054
Bell_Beaker_POL:I6582
0.02906736
ITA_Rome_Renaissance:RMPR1224
0.02937523
VK2020_DNK_Sealand_VA:VK90
0.02966750
VK2020_SWE_Oland_VA:VK442
0.02984664
Bell_Beaker_CZE:I4945
0.03015773
ITA_Rome_Imperial:RMPR116
0.03030008
VK2020_SWE_Skara_VA:VK403
0.03053772
ITA_Rome_Renaissance:RMPR1220
0.03077962
ITA_Rome_MA:RMPR62
0.03078066
VK2020_DNK_Langeland_VA:VK365
0.03120819
HUN_MA_Szolad:SZ45
0.03136991
VK2020_SWE_Gotland_VA:VK477
0.03189924
VK2020_SWE_Oland_VA:VK444
0.03197293
VK2020_NOR_South_VA:VK448
0.03206984
DEU_Lech_EBA:AITI_78
0.03213192
Bell_Beaker_CZE:I4885
0.03243810
ITA_Sicily_EBA:I11443
0.03287191
VK2020_DNK_Langeland_VA:VK317
0.03306397
VK2020_DNK_Jutland_VA:VK87
0.03321864
VK2020_DNK_Funen_VA:VK138
0.03349546
FRA_IA:NOR2B6
0.03402121
ITA_Collegno_MA:CL87
0.03412992
DEU_Lech_EBA:POST_44
0.03417398
VK2020_England_Oxford_VA:VK146
0.03421630
Bell_Beaker_Bavaria:I5520
0.03425901
Iberia_Northeast_c.6CE_PL:I12163
0.03430233
Bell_Beaker_Bavaria:I6591
0.03439254
HUN_MA_Szolad:SZ5
0.03463116
VK2020_DNK_Funen_VA:VK319
0.03496920
Bell_Beaker_Bavaria:I5529
0.03527257
Iberia_Northeast_c.6-8CE_ES:I3777
0.03530109
ITA_Rome_MA:RMPR1288
0.03542314
HUN_MA_Szolad:SZ27
0.03564088
Bell_Beaker_CZE:I4886
0.03606210
FRA_IA:Jeb8
0.03626597
HUN_MA_Szolad:SZ3
0.03632003
ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity:RMPR106
0.03634727
HUN_MA_Szolad:SZ18
0.03636705
CHE_EBA:RA63
0.03696889
DEU_Singen_EBA:MX286
0.03738102
ITA_Collegno_MA:CL94
0.03791265
VK2020_SWE_Oland_VA:VK333
0.03794854
Bell_Beaker_CZE:I4896
0.03814001
Bell_Beaker_Bavaria:I3588
0.03833406
VK2020_DNK_Langeland_VA:VK363
0.03855816
VK2020_DNK_Sealand_VA:VK369
0.03873184
VK2020_SWE_Karda_VA:VK266
0.03876655
VK2020_DNK_Jutland_VA:VK328
0.03886389
HUN_MA_Szolad:SZ23
0.03899654
VK2020_DNK_Funen_VA:VK278
0.03912548
Iberia_Northeast_Empuries1:I8214
0.03913844
VK2020_England_Oxford_VA:VK150
0.03925236
England_CA_EBA:I2462
0.03936344
HUN_MA:DA199
0.03943792
ITA_Rome_Renaissance:RMPR1219
0.03944687
ITA_Collegno_MA:CL47
0.03956687
FRA_BA:RIX4
0.03972340
DEU_Lech_EBA:UNTA85_1412
0.03979659
Bell_Beaker_CZE:I7214
0.04029972
VK2020_DNK_Funen_VA:VK314
0.04034324
Bell_Beaker_Bavaria:I6590
0.04037539
ITA_Rome_Renaissance:RMPR1221
0.04064828
DEU_Singen_EBA:MX252
0.04069978
DEU_Roman:FN_2
0.04081239
VK2020_SWE_Oland_VA:VK357
0.04087314
Iberia_Northeast_Empuries1:I8203
0.04092170
Bell_Beaker_CZE:I7275
0.04099558
Iberia_Northeast_c.6CE_PL:I12031
0.04124367
VK2020_DNK_Sealand_EVA:VK65
0.04136464
Iberia_East_IA:I3324
0.04159746
Levant_LBN_MA_o2:SI-47
0.04177515
VK2020_DNK_Langeland_VA:VK362
0.04185895
VK2020_DNK_Langeland_VA:VK276
0.04192989
ITA_Rome_MA:RMPR1289
0.04215780
Iberia_Central_CA_Stp:EHU001
0.04219288
Bell_Beaker_Bavaria:E09538
0.04224797
BGR_EBA:I2165
0.04226831
ITA_Rome_MA:RMPR55
0.04238965
ITA_Collegno_MA:CL53
0.04250732
Bell_Beaker_Mittelelbe-Saale:I0113
0.04267487
VK2020_SWE_Gotland_VA:VK57
0.04295110
DEU_Singen_EBA:MX257
0.04304103
DEU_Singen_EBA:MX288
0.04308081
VK2020_ISL_Hofstadir_VA:VK95
0.04322256
FRA_IA:ERS86
0.04341060
Bell_Beaker_CZE:I7278
0.04342011
Scythian_HUN:DA195
0.04342694
England_Roman:S14491
0.04349452
DEU_Singen_EBA:MX280
0.04361006
VK2020_RUS_Ladoga_VA:VK218
0.04374493
ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity:RMPR109
0.04393619
CHE_EBA:SX23
0.04393760
ITA_Prenestini_tribe_IA:RMPR435b
0.04418037
VK2020_DNK_Langeland_VA:VK286
0.04420774
Bell_Beaker_Bavaria:I5834

GoldenHind
10-25-2020, 05:42 PM
It probably means that other DF99 individuals, with similar autosomal, continued down with other Germanic tribes in the migration period. These guys' line stayed back in northern Germany/Denmark. All in all, DF99 is Germanic.

That is basically in line with my thinking as well. For some time my working hypothesis has been that DF99 expanded from a location somewhere in the general vicinity of the southern Baltic coast during the Migration era. This is speculative to some degree, but is consistent with what we currently know about the modern distribution of the DF99 marker, as well as the four samples of ancient DNA. I don't know when DF99 became part of the Germanic people, but I suspect it, or at least most of it, was absorbed into the Jastorf culture (generally seen as the origin of the Germanic peoples) at some point.

Theconqueror
10-25-2020, 06:03 PM
vk336 seems more diverse than vk369

Target VK2020_DNK_Sealand_VA:VK369 VK2020_SWE_Oland_VA:VK336
Distance 0.00079225 0.00034752
AZE_Caucasus_lowlands_LC 0 0.2
Baltic_LTU_Late_Antiquity_low_res 0 0.6
Bell_Beaker_England 0 0.2
Bell_Beaker_England_EBA 0 1.4
Bell_Beaker_Iberia 0 2.8
Bell_Beaker_ITA 0 1
Bell_Beaker_NLD 0 0.8
CHE_EBA 0 2.6
CZE_Starounetice_EBA 0.4 0
DEU_LBK_HBS 0 3.6
DEU_MA_ACD 0 1.6
DOM_southeast_Ceramic 0 0.8
England_CA_EBA 0 0.2
England_Saxon 0 9.8
FRA_BA 0 5
FRA_IA 0 0.6
GRC_Minoan_Odigitria_low_res 1 0.2
HUN_Lengyel_LN 0 3.6
HUN_MA_Szolad 0 0.2
Iberia_Central_BA 0 0.6
Iberia_Menorca_LBA 0.2 0.8
Iberia_N 0.4 0
Iberia_Northeast_MLN 0.6 0
Iberia_Southeast_c.10-16CE 0 2.2
IRN_Tepe_Hissar_C 0 0.2
ITA_Collegno_MA 2 1.4
ITA_Rome_Imperial 0 0.4
ITA_Sardinia_EBA 0 2.6
ITA_Sardinia_MA 0.2 0
Levant_Ashkelon_IA2 0 0.2
Levant_Baqah_BA 0 0.6
Levant_Natufian 0.4 0
MAR_Taforalt 0.2 0
RUS_Afanasievo 0 0.4
RUS_Alan_MA 0.8 3.4
RUS_Sintashta_MLBA 0 1.4
Scotland_Megalithic 0 0.6
SWE_LN_low_res 0 3.4
SWE_Viking_Age_Sigtuna 1.2 0
TUR_Camlibel_Tarlasi_LC 0 0.6
TUR_Ikiztepe_LC 0 0.4
TUR_Kaman-Kalehoyuk_MLBA 0 0.8
TUR_Tell_Kurdu_EC 0 1.2
UKR_Trypillia 0 9.4
VK2020_DNK_Jutland_VA 0 1
VK2020_DNK_Sealand_VA 85 0
VK2020_England_Dorset_VA 0 6
VK2020_England_Oxford_VA 0.2 0
VK2020_Faroes_EM 4 2.8
VK2020_NOR_Mid_MA 0.8 3.6
VK2020_NOR_South_VA 0 1
VK2020_Scotland_Orkney_VA 2 0
VK2020_SWE_Gotland_VA 0.6 4.6
VK2020_SWE_Oland_EVA 0 9.8
VK2020_SWE_Oland_VA 0 3.2
VK2020_SWE_Skara_VA 0 2
VUT_2900BP_all 0 0.2

Frithnanth
10-26-2020, 04:03 PM
... All in all, DF99 is Germanic.

How can we be sure about this? Two of the ancient DF99 samples had substantial southern ancestry. CL94's DNA was roughly 2/3 southern european and (as stated by Roaring) VK336 seems to have strong southern admixture.

With DF99's current presence in Italy, why can't we suppose that this marker was spread from some italian or alpine tribe?

Theconqueror
10-27-2020, 05:39 PM
How can we be sure about this? Two of the ancient DF99 samples had substantial southern ancestry. CL94's DNA was roughly 2/3 southern european and (as stated by Roaring) VK336 seems to have strong southern admixture.

With DF99's current presence in Italy, why can't we suppose that this marker was spread from some italian or alpine tribe?

I am not sure of anything. I had posted some analysis of CL94 and the individual is not that southern. Furthermore, it is hard to put DF99 in the alps during that timeframe. The individuals found in the south were in line with north-south migrations culturally (lombards, etc). The northern individuals come from cultures with probably no southern intakes. When I say germanic, I don't mean nordic but it seems plausible that at least some sub-clades followed a north-south path. My 2 cents.

GoldenHind
10-31-2020, 07:25 PM
How can we be sure about this? Two of the ancient DF99 samples had substantial southern ancestry. CL94's DNA was roughly 2/3 southern european and (as stated by Roaring) VK336 seems to have strong southern admixture.

With DF99's current presence in Italy, why can't we suppose that this marker was spread from some italian or alpine tribe?

I think it is extremely difficult to explain what we currently know about the distribution of DF99 with an expansion point in northern Italy or the Alpine area. There is a very strong north-south cline of DF99 in Italy. It is most common in the far north, and becomes very scarce south of Tuscany. Meanwhile it extends north from northern Italy through Germany all the way up to Scandinavia. If it originated in northern Italy, it seems it only expanded in one direction. Also no DF99 was found in the recent study of ancient DNA in Rome. It would also be difficult to explain the relatively strong presence of DF99 in England compared to its relative scarcity in Wales, Scotland and Ireland. I am not aware of any large population movement from Italy or the Alpine area northwards to Scandinavia and England.

However all of this is consistent with a spread of DF99 from from northern Europe with various Germanic tribes during the Migration Age, including Alemanni into Switzerland, Lombards and Ostrogoths etc. into Italy and Anglo-Saxons into England.

That being said, we know very little about population movement within Europe during the Bronze Age. The amber trade connected the Baltic area with various areas in Europe, and there were probably more trade routes involved with the production of salt and copper mining. I certainly wouldn't rule out the possibility that some DF99 may have been present in northern Italy or the Alpine area long before the beginning of the Migration Age. If so, I suspect it is probably the exception rather than the rule.

As Theconqueror says, we can't really be sure of anything at this point, and I think it is wise not to be dogmatic based on the limited data currently available. More DF99 samples from ancient DNA will certainly provide important clues and probably even some surprises.

Telfermagne
11-05-2020, 10:49 AM
I really want to know who the German & unknown origin fellows are who run parallel to me on the tree. All three of us are FT49882, but they have downstream Z34586 whereas I do not. I didn't spy either fellow in the project at FTDNA.

GoldenHind
11-05-2020, 08:52 PM
I really want to know who the German & unknown origin fellows are who run parallel to me on the tree. All three of us are FT49882, but they have downstream Z34586 whereas I do not. I didn't spy either fellow in the project at FTDNA.

I wish I knew their identity as well. I can confirm neither is in the DF99 Project at FTDNA. As you have no doubt seen, they share an additional 12 SNPs beyond FT49882. It would be very helpful to at least know the location in Germany of his EKA,

There are several unidentified DF99+ men who have done the Big Y but aren't in the project. That includes an American of unknown origin who shares 13 SNPs with VK369 from the Viking era study. I suspect they don't know the significance of DF99 in the sequence of their markers.

Telfermagne
11-05-2020, 10:56 PM
What clade of DF99 is VK369? I can't find him on the Block tree at FTDNA.

GoldenHind
11-06-2020, 07:03 AM
What clade of DF99 is VK369? I can't find him on the Block tree at FTDNA.

VK369 (Sealand, Denmark) is DF99>FGC847>FGC7556>FT108043 (plus 12 more SNPs).

VK336 (Oland, Sweden) is DF99>S16982>S16136>FGC16979>>FGC55515>BY106906.

Neither is included on FTDNA's block tree, but the American who matches VK369 is listed.

Theconqueror
11-28-2020, 09:16 AM
Concerning Mokrin:

The likely origin of the Maros culture / EBA group population was recently described by Bertemes & Heyd (2015):

(…) the beginnings of the east-Austrian Leitha and Unterwölbling groups (and the Early Maros Culture) must be set one or two generations earlier than the beginning of the Straubing group, for example. In turn, the novelties defining the Danubian EBA arrive in Singen and central Switzerland a further one or two generations later than in Straubing.

Due to its distribution over three countries (Hungary, Romania, Serbia), its long duration of c. 500 years, and the early discovery of both graves and settlement sites, this culture/group is known by several terms and names, such as Perjámos, Periam, and Maros/Mures¸, and is sometimes combined with the neighbouring so-called Ada group. In order to avoid further confusion, we will refer to it as the “Early Maros Culture”.

(…) there is, in the cultural entity of the Early Maros Culture, a kind of regional exclave of the Danubian EBA in south-eastern Hungary/ south-western Romania/northern Serbia, far outside its core area north of the Alps. The arrangement of the cemeteries, the burials and burial customs, and the material culture found at sites such as Sándorfalva-Eperjes, co. Csongrád (Hungary; Trogmayer 2001) and Kiskundorozsma-Hosszúhát-halom near Szeged, co. Csongrád (Hungary; Bende/ Lörinczy 2002), complemented by the earliest graves in the cemetery of Mokrin (Wagner 2009), are in the initial phases so interchangeable with those of the Burgenland and Lower Austria (already recognised by Fischl/Kulcsár 2o11) that one starts to wonder how this can possibly be so. It is all the more astonishing since these cemeteries start suddenly, without any regional predecessors. Likewise, there are no similar cemeteries and isolated burials in the several hundred kilometres in-between, in territory which is occupied by a different EBA complex, the Nagyrév group (Vollmann 2005).

Finally, no real Bell Beaker substrate in this part of Hungary/Romania, beyond some isolated finds (Heyd 2oo7a; Dani/Tóth 2014), has ever been documented. This leaves us with only one realistic assumption: that prehistoric peoples, probably of a Leitha and/or Unterwölbling group background, emigrated along the Danube River to the south and settled here in a foreign territory, probably at the time of the initial Danubian EBA. But why this migration took place around 2200 BC remains totally unknown. Was it due to demographic pressure? Was it due to a subsistence crisis? Or were these even refugees from the communities of the Bell Beaker cemeteries around Budapest, whose settlement sites soon after became part of the Nagyrév group (Endrödi 2014, 270–272)? We don’t have answers yet but better data on the why and how could surely be provided by bio-archaeological investigations which have not yet been undertaken.

R.Rocca
11-28-2020, 01:35 PM
I think it is extremely difficult to explain what we currently know about the distribution of DF99 with an expansion point in northern Italy or the Alpine area. There is a very strong north-south cline of DF99 in Italy. It is most common in the far north, and becomes very scarce south of Tuscany. Meanwhile it extends north from northern Italy through Germany all the way up to Scandinavia. If it originated in northern Italy, it seems it only expanded in one direction. Also no DF99 was found in the recent study of ancient DNA in Rome. It would also be difficult to explain the relatively strong presence of DF99 in England compared to its relative scarcity in Wales, Scotland and Ireland. I am not aware of any large population movement from Italy or the Alpine area northwards to Scandinavia and England.

However all of this is consistent with a spread of DF99 from from northern Europe with various Germanic tribes during the Migration Age, including Alemanni into Switzerland, Lombards and Ostrogoths etc. into Italy and Anglo-Saxons into England.

That being said, we know very little about population movement within Europe during the Bronze Age. The amber trade connected the Baltic area with various areas in Europe, and there were probably more trade routes involved with the production of salt and copper mining. I certainly wouldn't rule out the possibility that some DF99 may have been present in northern Italy or the Alpine area long before the beginning of the Migration Age. If so, I suspect it is probably the exception rather than the rule.

As Theconqueror says, we can't really be sure of anything at this point, and I think it is wise not to be dogmatic based on the limited data currently available. More DF99 samples from ancient DNA will certainly provide important clues and probably even some surprises.

I wouldn't be so quick to use the high modern day frequency of DF99 in northern Italy as a point of origin. Brother clade U152 is found in frequencies as high as 70% in some Alpine passages in northern Italy. However, in the ancient DNA record, U152 accounted for almost all of the Bell Beaker R1b from Southern Germany all the way to Hungary. The Bell Beaker skeletons from Italy that have been radiocarbon dated are younger than the ones from Central Europe.

GoldenHind
11-29-2020, 06:21 PM
I wouldn't be so quick to use the high modern day frequency of DF99 in northern Italy as a point of origin. Brother clade U152 is found in frequencies as high as 70% in some Alpine passages in northern Italy. However, in the ancient DNA record, U152 accounted for almost all of the Bell Beaker R1b from Southern Germany all the way to Hungary. The Bell Beaker skeletons from Italy that have been radiocarbon dated are younger than the ones from Central Europe.

I try to keep an open mind to various possibilities, based on the current evidence. I currently suspect the north/south cline of DF99 in Italy is most likely the result of an arrival there from the north during the Migration Age.

We still don't have a single DF99 (or DF19 or L238) sample from the numerous Bell Beaker or Bronze Age results. It could be that all three of those P312 subclades were so rare then that one just hasn't turned up yet. Or perhaps they were largely confined to the northern Beaker area that hasn't been sampled yet, which is my suspicion. Or they may not have been part of the Beakers at all, but if so, they must have been somewhere during the Bronze Age.

If DF99 turns up in the Alpine area or southern Germany or Hungary from the Bronze Age, I would revise my current hypothesis. But at present there are no DF99 among ancient DNA samples prior to the Migration period.

GoldenHind
01-06-2021, 10:52 PM
We now have the ninth Big Y result for DF99 in Moravia in the Czech Republic. All nine are DF99>FGC16982>S16136>BY15507>FGC72205. Below that, all nine also have BY65827, which has so far only been found in these nine. But below that, there are important differences. Four of them share a block of at least ten SNPs. Another two share another block of seven different SNPs. The other three have none of the markers from these two blocks. They are not all STR marker matches, at least above the 12 marker level.

BY15507 is a fairly diverse group, and includes men with ancestry from England and Germany.

I suspect this indicates their ancestors have been in Moravia for at least 1000 years. My best guess, and I emphasize it is only a guess, for their origin is the Suebian Germanic tribe the Quadi, who are said to have displaced the Celtic Boii in Moravia during Roman times.

According to the FTDNA public haplotree, there is also a DF99 from Slovenia, but I have no idea who that is.

Telfermagne
01-20-2021, 09:18 PM
Anyone know the country of origin for FT382507?

GoldenHind
01-21-2021, 10:20 PM
Anyone know the country of origin for FT382507?

I don't have a clue. According to the FTDNA public haplotree, there are two men who have this as a terminal SNP. I would guess they are closely related. Both list their paternal origin as unknown. Neither appears to be in the DF99 Project, so I have no idea who they are.

Again according to the FTDNA public haplotree, FT382507 is nine steps below DF99. However the total is much greater, as many of those steps are blocks of multiple markers. FT382507 itself is a block of 22 markers.

A clue to its origin may possibly be suggested by the one person who also shares the marker directly above it, Z34586, although that itself is a block of 13 markers. There is only the one other person who also has it, and he indicates an ancestral origin in Germany.

Telfermagne
01-21-2021, 11:01 PM
Hopefully their origin eventually gets revealed; I'm parallel to the the German fellow.

GoldenHind
03-14-2021, 09:30 PM
The most recent member of the FTDNA DF99 Project is a Brazilian whose father was an immigrant from Naples. Beyond that he knows nothing. DF99 in Italy south of Tuscany is extremely rare. I checked a surname distribution map for his surname and found that his surname is found throughout the country, though is most common in Campania, the province where Naples is located.\

EDIT: He has no matches above 12 markers.

GoldenHind
03-25-2021, 11:30 PM
It has been nearly a year since I checked for DF99 numbers on the FTDNA public haplotree. The total number who have tested DF99+ has grown from 210 to 238, an increase of over 10%. The two most common countries of origin are Germany and England, tied at 34 or just under 20% each of the total number. They are followed by the USA at 15, Switzerland at 13, France at 12, the UK at 10 and the Czech Republic at 9. There are another 19 countries at 5 or below, with about half at just one.

Some of these results are skewed from numerous results from a single family, so I wouldn't give them too much significance. However I think it is fair to say that DF99 is concentrated in Germanic language countries, England in the British Isles and Germany on the continent.

EDIT: I should have mentioned that the largest group is "Unknown" at 67.

GoldenHind
03-29-2021, 02:01 AM
It has been nearly a year since I checked for DF99 numbers on the FTDNA public haplotree. The total number who have tested DF99+ has grown from 210 to 238, an increase of over 10%. The two most common countries of origin are Germany and England, tied at 34 or just under 20% each of the total number. They are followed by the USA at 15, Switzerland at 13, France at 12, the UK at 10 and the Czech Republic at 9. There are another 19 countries at 5 or below, with about half at just one.

Some of these results are skewed from numerous results from a single family, so I wouldn't give them too much significance. However I think it is fair to say that DF99 is concentrated in Germanic language countries, England in the British Isles and Germany on the continent.

EDIT: I should have mentioned that the largest group is "Unknown" at 67.

I inadvertently failed to include Italy on this list. It comes in sixth place with 11 examples, between France and the United Kingdom.

GoldenHind
07-01-2021, 11:08 PM
Some may be interested to learn that someone of Swedish YDNA ancestry recently confirmed his suspected DF99+ status through the Big Y, where he tested DF99>S16982>S16136>BY15507 etc. There are several others from Sweden who are confirmed DF99+, but I believe he is the first to do the Big Y. We know from the Viking age study that DF99 has been present in Scandinavia at least since the 9th century AD. This is further evidence of a presence of DF99 in the Baltic area which I suspect may be quite ancient and likely important in the history of the DF99 marker.

GoldenHind
07-28-2021, 07:30 PM
I have long suspected a presence of DF99 in Norway, but it has proved elusive until recently. I am aware of some with ancestry from Norway whose markers and matches suggest they are likely to be DF99, but none of them have tested for it. Now there is someone with ancestry from Norway back to the 17th century in Nordland in northern Norway who has tested DF99+ [>FGC16982>S16136>FGC16979>FT83105 etc.] in the Big Y. He is a Big Y match with an Icelander whose ancestors originated in Denmark. He also has a 66/67 STR match with someone with a Scandinavian name (either Norwegian or Danish) who has not tested beyond M269.

He is in the P312 Project but has not yet joined the DF99 Project. I will contact him and ask him to join.

We now have DF99 confirmed in Norway, Sweden and Denmark, in addition to the two in Sweden and Denmark in the Viking aDNA study.

GoldenHind
07-30-2021, 06:55 PM
I have long suspected a presence of DF99 in Norway, but it has proved elusive until recently. I am aware of some with ancestry from Norway whose markers and matches suggest they are likely to be DF99, but none of them have tested for it. Now there is someone with ancestry from Norway back to the 17th century in Nordland in northern Norway who has tested DF99+ [>FGC16982>S16136>FGC16979>FT83105 etc.] in the Big Y. He is a Big Y match with an Icelander whose ancestors originated in Denmark. He also has a 66/67 STR match with someone with a Scandinavian name (either Norwegian or Danish) who has not tested beyond M269.

He is in the P312 Project but has not yet joined the DF99 Project. I will contact him and ask him to join.

We now have DF99 confirmed in Norway, Sweden and Denmark, in addition to the two in Sweden and Denmark in the Viking aDNA study.

He has now joined the DF99 project.

Frithnanth
09-01-2021, 01:14 AM
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.30.458211v1.supplementary-material

Two samples from this study (I15538 and I15539) are listed as "R1b,R-M269,R-L23,R-L52,R-L151,R-P312,R-D99" SNP.

Is D99 the same as DF99?

Theconqueror
09-01-2021, 03:35 PM
If indeed they are df99, this is starting to make sense in relation to Mokrin.

Dewsloth
09-01-2021, 04:12 PM
If they are DF99, I wonder how close the twins are to CL94? CL94 was found with the Langobards in Collegno but isotopes showed was not local, and autosomally seemed to have ">50% Iberian and some ‘southern’ ancestry" to quote the paper.

Theconqueror
09-01-2021, 07:08 PM
It would be good to have a recap here. We have 1 lombard 2 vikings, 1 from Mokrin, and potentially 2 more from Serbia.

GoldenHind
09-02-2021, 10:46 PM
I confess to being a bit confused.

First, what does Morkin refer to? It doesn't ring a bell.

The new results referred to above are from the destroyed Roman fortress of Timacum Minus in Serbia. The DF99 result in burial 11538 was previously reported and discussed on pages 87 and 88 of this thread. And yes, D99 is undoubtedly a typo for DF99. What appears to be new is that burial 11539 is also DF99 and apparently a twin to 11538. These appear to be dated to 892-989 AD. They are both from what is referred to as the Kuline Necropolis at Timacum Minus. This was previously discussed, but perhaps this excerpt from the original report (translated into somewhat awkward English from Serbo-Croatian?) is worth repeating:

"Also, we may note, after the extreme robusticity of the body, specific anomalies in the skeletal development and epigenetic traits that on the Kuline were buried the members of the same tribal-blood related community, which is characteristic for the necropolis of the Great Migration Period. After some warrior injuries and markers of occupational stress it may be assumed that they often took part in battles and that they were light-armed horsemen."

I note this new report classifies the Kuline burials as a Serbia-Slavic cluster. Page 18 of the new report classifies the Kuline twins as South Western European Iron Age Related. Presumably this is based on autosomal DNA?

I very much doubt DF99 was ever Slavic or was from southwestern Europe. Could they have been originally a Germanic group (such as Ostrogoths or perhaps Gepids?) who were absorbed into a Slavic group during the Migration era?

Any ideas?

GoldenHind
09-02-2021, 10:58 PM
Incidentally there is yet another DF99 from ancient DNA reported by Dewsloth from the 82 individuals in a recent Etruscan study, which constitutes a very long thread on this forum (see page 38 post 378 of that thread). Unlike the Lombard or Timacum studies (which follows the ISOGG tree), this one was tested beyond DF99 to (FGC16982>S16136>BY15507 in FTDNA terminology). The samples are from Etruria and central Italy and range in date from 800 BC to 1000 AD.

The DF99 sample is identified as UDC_P.SG, and is the only one so identified. Presumably this refers to a location somewhere in Italy, but where? Without further specificity as to date and location, this isn't very helpful.

The study mentions they identified "northern European components which appeared in central Italy during the Early Middle Ages." Perhaps the DF99 sample is one of these?

Dewsloth
09-02-2021, 11:27 PM
I confess to being a bit confused.

First, what does Morkin refer to? It doesn't ring a bell.

The new results referred to above are from the destroyed Roman fortress of Timacum Minus fortress in Serbia. The DF99 result in burial 11538 was previously reported and discussed on pages 87 and 88 of this thread. And yes, D99 is undoubtedly a typo for DF99. What appears to be new is that burial 11539 is also DF99 and apparently a twin to 11538. These appear to be dated to 892-989 AD. They are both from the what is referred to as the Kuline Necropolis at Timacum Minus. This was previously discussed, but perhaps this excerpt from the original report (translated into somewhat awkward English from Serbo-Croatian?) is worth repeating:

"Also, we may note, after the extreme robusticity of the body, specific anomalies in the skeletal development and epigenetic traits that on the Kuline were buried the members of the same tribal-blood related community, which is characteristic for the necropolis of the Great Migration Period. After some warrior injuries and markers of occupational stress it may be assumed that they often took part in battles and that they were light-armed horsemen."

I note this new report classifies the Kuline burials as a Serbia-Slavic cluster. Page 18 of the new report classifies the Kuline twins as South Western European Iron Age Related. Presumably this is based on autosomal DNA?

I very much doubt DF99 was ever Slavic or was from southwestern Europe. Could they have been originally a Germanic group (such as Ostrogoths or perhaps Gepids?) who were absorbed into a Slavic group during the Migration era?

Any ideas?

Mokrin was a necropolis (EBA?) in northern Serbia.

Maybe the twins were descendants of [Ostro?]Goths who mixed with Mokrin descendants?

By that late a date, the possibilities are wide open for a historically Germanic (or other) group who lived outside their core Germanic (or other) area for centuries and mixed with the "locals."
I'm really curious to see if they have any connection to CL94.

Distance to: ITA_Collegno_MA:CL94
0.02533018 VK2020_England_Oxford_VA:VK146
0.02542467 SRB_Mokrin_EBA:MOK10B
0.02558440 SRB_Mokrin_EBA:MOK29A
0.02790452 VK2020_DNK_Langeland_VA:VK286
0.02940504 VK2020_DNK_Langeland_VA:VK365
0.02980226 Bell_Beaker_CZE_late:I4885
0.03024515 ITA_Rome_Renaissance:RMPR1221
0.03050181 VK2020_DNK_Funen_VA:VK314
0.03083630 Bell_Beaker_Bavaria:I5520
0.03118098 HUN_MA_Szolad:SZ45
0.03237231 SRB_Mokrin_EBA:MOK32
0.03251868 ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity:RMPR108
0.03253351 Bell_Beaker_Bavaria:E09538
0.03261475 DEU_Roman:FN_2
0.03299950 ITA_Rome_Imperial:RMPR116
0.03302037 ITA_Prenestini_tribe_IA:RMPR435b
0.03350861 ITA_Rome_Renaissance:RMPR1224
0.03372564 Iberia_Northeast_c.8-12CE:I10895
0.03396637 ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity:RMPR105
0.03428675 SRB_Mokrin_EBA:MOK20
0.03443625 SRB_Mokrin_EBA:MOK25A
0.03444011 HUN_MA_Szolad:SZ28
0.03453813 SRB_Mokrin_EBA:MOK24A
0.03454830 SRB_Mokrin_EBA:MOK14
0.03461100 Bell_Beaker_Bavaria:I5524

GoldenHind
09-03-2021, 06:32 AM
Can anyone refer me to a source about DF99 in Mokrin?

GoldenHind
09-03-2021, 06:49 AM
Maybe the twins were descendants of [Ostro?]Goths who mixed with Mokrin descendants?

By that late a date, the possibilities are wide open for a historically Germanic (or other) group who lived outside their core Germanic (or other) area for centuries and mixed with the "locals."
I'm really curious to see if they have any connection to CL94.

From the new study:

"During the Migration Period, the Balkans became a channel for movements of people towards the west and the south: Goths, Huns, Gepids, Heruli, Lombards or Slavs, moved through, sacked and/or settled in the Balkan territories."

Pribislav
09-03-2021, 06:55 AM
Can anyone refer me to a source about DF99 in Mokrin?

There is no DF99 in Mokrin, all four R1b samples are below Z2103.

Theconqueror
09-03-2021, 10:26 AM
More precisely,

Timacum Minus, Kuline necropolis - 5 (labeled Serbia_Early_Middle_Age):

I2 x 2 (M423 x 2)

E x 1 (L618)

J x 1 (M304)

R1b x 1 (P312>DF99)