PDA

View Full Version : R1b-U106 from Únětice Culture 2200–1700 BC



Pages : 1 [2]

Finn
04-02-2018, 10:00 AM
I guess R1b U106 Lilla Beddinge can be connected to (proto) Unetice network (MDLP K11 result of this sample: 1 Unetice_EBA @ 3.008374), the connection is through the Oder.
And Oostwoud R1b U106 also, Fokkens qualified the way of burying as MBA, Oostwoud can be connected with the amber trade too.
Both are not of the highest ranks like the chieftain Drouwen. I think in both cases:
The two bottom tiers contained burials with ceramic vessels only, or completely unfurnished graves (Schwarz 2014: 719–25).

Radboud
04-02-2018, 10:56 AM
I agree. One would think U106 would be showing up, if it were part of Kurgan Bell Beaker. It very well could have been part of Kurgan Bell Beaker on the Baltic, as you say. Nothing from Baltic KBB has been tested, so that's the logical conclusion.

I don't know what else to think unless U106 was a minor group in Corded Ware at the time or came in from the steppe a little later than P312 did. Somehow it made it into Czech Unetice, but that doesn't tell us where it was before that (except we know it was in Sweden a couple of centuries before showing up in Unetice).

Agreed, McDonald's current view about U106 makes sense to me, although it's also possible U106 had it's origins further east than the region between Prague and the Baltic:


The Unetice culture provides some context for the burial. It extended across most of the modern Czech Republic and north-west into Germany and south-western Poland. It abuts the Copper Age cultures of the western Baltic, which provide the basis for the RISE98 U106 burial, and the Bell Beaker culture to the west, which had statistically zero R-U106 until around 1700 BC, when the first R-U106 makes an appearance in the Hook of Holland. Temporally, this combined evidence suggests an ancestral origin for R-U106 within the broader Corded Ware umbrella in the regions between Prague and the Baltic


Imo, there are several scenarios for U106:

- U106 was small group in CWC. So far, only RISE1 belonged to R1b while the other CWC samples are mostly R1a. RISE98 is a bit to late to considered as Battle-Axe(Plus more stuff we discussed to death), but we now know that U106 was already in Scandinavia before 2000 BC. However, these findings doesn't appear to fall into exactly the places we need it. We need more samples from CWC Eastern Germany and (Western) Poland etc.

- U106 was part of Bell Beakers. Like we discussed before, I hope we will get to see some data from Baltic Bell Beakers because there is still statistically zero R-U106 in Bell Beakers, even though U106 showed up in Unetice Czech Republic & Bronze Age Netherlands.

- U106 was brought by (northern) GAC groups. We have now samples from GAC and they appear to be I2 and lack Steppe-derived ancestry, making a GAC scenario unlikely at this point.

- U106 was brought by an unknown derived Steppe group. Initially, I was sceptical about this theory, but based on the current evidence, this scenario is getting more realistic. I remember that David Anthony mentioned a an earlier movement up the Dniester that might have spoken a Pre-Proto-Germanic language.

Finn
04-02-2018, 11:11 AM
Agreed, McDonald's current view about U106 makes sense to me, although it's also possible U106 had it's origins further east than the region between Prague and the Baltic:


Imo, there are several scenarios for U106:

- U106 was small group in CWC. So far, only RISE1 belonged to R1b while the other CWC samples are mostly R1a. However, these findings doesn't appear to fall into exactly the places we need it. We need more samples from CWC Eastern Germany and (Western) Poland etc.

- U106 was part of Bell Beakers. Like we discussed before, I hope we will get to see some data from Baltic Bell Beakers because there is still statistically zero R-U106 in Bell Beakers, even though U106 showed up in Unetice Czech Republic & Bronze Age Netherlands.

- U106 was brought by (northern) GAC groups. We have now samples from GAC and they appear to be I2 and lack Steppe-derived ancestry, making a GAC scenario unlikely at this point.

- U106 was brought by an unknown derived Steppe group. Initially, I was sceptical about this theory, but based on the current evidence, this scenario is getting more realistic. I remember that David Anthony mentioned a an earlier movement up the Dniester that might have spoken a Pre-Proto-Germanic language.

Clear!

Few possible adds.

And the Rocca find of BB Czech elsewhere mentioned here?

And what about R1b U106 Lichtenstein and Kromsdorf?

Or aren't they R1b U106?

Radboud
04-02-2018, 11:25 AM
Clear!

Few possible adds.

And the Rocca find of BB Czech elsewhere mentioned here?

And what about R1b U106 Lichtenstein and Kromsdorf?

Or aren't they R1b U106?

I asked Williamson if this Czech Bell Beaker was derived for Z9 and he mentioned this:


I have taken a look at I7288. It is possible it could belong to Z9, but there isn't much supporting that claim. None of the kits have good coverage. That kit has particularly bad coverage. I checked out about 20,000 SNPs on my tree in haplogroups P312 and U106 and all I found was four SNPs with positive results, one of which was actually mixed ancestral and derived.

R-L21/S145>DF13>DF21/S192>S971>Z3000/S951>Z3006>BY3157 23607561-G-A 1A
R-L21/S145>DF13>DF21/S192>FGC3903/S5201>Z246>DF25>L1402>FGC23105 FGC23115 22437420-G-T 1T
R-M269>U106/S21>Z2265>Z381/S263>Z301/S499>L48>Z9 S268/Z9 6788390-C-T 1T
R-L21/S145>DF13>ZZ10>Z253>Z2534>Z2185>Z2186>L1066>BY411 M2268/Y539/S23267/Z4948 21562790-C-A 1A 1C

My guess is that the Z9 result is likely just deamination, which happens for aDNA, and results in spurious C->T (and G->A in results) mutations. There's really nothing here.

Kromsdorf is negative for U106, Lichtenstein might have been U106 because someone predicted that he was U106+ based on a haplotype in the past, but it's not a confirmation.

rms2
04-02-2018, 01:37 PM
Finn,

If you look back at posts 241 and 246, you will see that apparently neither of the Bell Beaker samples we thought was U106 actually is U106.

So, it looks like we're back to no U106 in Bell Beaker thus far.

rms2
04-02-2018, 02:04 PM
. . .



Kromsdorf is negative for U106 . . .

I remember that was one of the big surprises with the Kromsdorf skeletons, which supplied our first two Kurgan Bell Beaker test results, back before NGS testing. They actually tested them for U106, and they were negative, despite being recovered from an area that today has plenty of U106. I think the researchers tested them for U106 because they anticipated a positive result. I don't believe they tested them for P312.

Little did we know then what a sign of things to come that was.

Finn
04-02-2018, 03:03 PM
I remember that was one of the big surprises with the Kromsdorf skeletons, which supplied our first two Kurgan Bell Beaker test results, back before NGS testing. They actually tested them for U106, and they were negative, despite being recovered from an area that today has plenty of U106. I think the researchers tested them for U106 because they anticipated a positive result. I don't believe they tested them for P312.

Little did we know then what a sign of things to come that was.

Yes indeed.

We have to deal with the samples we now have. In the hope new findings makes things more clear.

Nevertheless based on the samples we now have you can make an educated guess.The oldest three R1b U106 are the Unetice of this topic, Lille Beddinge (Rise 98) the grave of it makes nothing quite clear, his auDNA is related to Unetice (MDLP K11), number three Oostwoud is clearly Bronze Age (according to Fokkens).

I know it needs some imagination and associative thought but one thing is clear: the"power house" culture was Unetice. It was at that time (2300-1600 BC) the one and only culture that from it's heartland in Central Europe could lay and maintain the lines and linkages to Scania and Friesland.....

But no definitive proof only circumstantial evidence!

jdean
04-02-2018, 03:35 PM
I remember that was one of the big surprises with the Kromsdorf skeletons, which supplied our first two Kurgan Bell Beaker test results, back before NGS testing. They actually tested them for U106, and they were negative, despite being recovered from an area that today has plenty of U106. I think the researchers tested them for U106 because they anticipated a positive result. I don't believe they tested them for P312.

Little did we know then what a sign of things to come that was.

I remember us discussing this at the time (don't think I had much input mind you) on the World Families Forum. The idea that Bell Beaker may have been the vector for P312 was brought up (by Jean Mancho if memory serves me correctly) and was taken up by rather enthusiastically, I can definitely remember Alan being particularly keen on it. I'm pretty sure this was also the first time I heard about the Bell Beaker culture.

Finn
04-02-2018, 04:33 PM
By the way I did 1:1 Ancient comparison on Gedmatch, Rise 98 has a typical Central European Bronze Age profile, and the biggest component (up to 3cM than Gedmatch was out of reach grrr) he shared with Rise 150 Unetice Silezia Poland, some background by Tomenable:
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?8408-Unetice-culture-was-clearly-multi-ethnic

alan
04-02-2018, 08:14 PM
I remember that was one of the big surprises with the Kromsdorf skeletons, which supplied our first two Kurgan Bell Beaker test results, back before NGS testing. They actually tested them for U106, and they were negative, despite being recovered from an area that today has plenty of U106. I think the researchers tested them for U106 because they anticipated a positive result. I don't believe they tested them for P312.

Little did we know then what a sign of things to come that was.

And Kromsdorf (which surely probability suggests was P312) must with a central RC date of 2550BC be either the earliest or v close to the earliest confirmed beaker man outside the genetically unrelated Iberian group. So, from the very start non-Iberian beaker people with the distinctive burials type were likely P312 and certainly differed from the R1a dominant group who preferred them. if you take the evidence at face value and strip away all existing models then the conclusion would be a new wave spread into central Europe with distinct fully formed burial and material traditions and a new dominant y lineage shortly before 2550BC. That is the baseline on which to build a model.

Incipient proto beaker traits that differ from classic CW of the main spreading phase of 2800-2750BC can be seen in the rise of archers kits and knives over battle axes, N-S burial orientation, craft specialist graves in groups in south Poland, Moldova and the western fringes of the steppes in the immediate generations before the steppe beaker culture first appeared. Those incipient beaker traits are NOT present (I looked into this) in any CW or other groups west of Poland such as Germany, Czech Republic, Slovakia etc. So the logical conclusion is the beaker culture probably formed in the Czech/South Germany area as result of a new thrust westwards shortly before 2550BC from somewhere between Poland and West Ukraine. The mistake made is overfocussing on the two big waves west by Yamnaya c. 3000-2900BC and CW c 2800-2700BC and not seeing that less dramatic flowcfrom the steppe area around and through the north Carpathians into central Europe continued to occur in the period 2750-2550BC after the spread of CW but before the appearance of central European beaker.

alan
04-02-2018, 08:39 PM
I remember us discussing this at the time (don't think I had much input mind you) on the World Families Forum. The idea that Bell Beaker may have been the vector for P312 was brought up (by Jean Mancho if memory serves me correctly) and was taken up by rather enthusiastically, I can definitely remember Alan being particularly keen on it. I'm pretty sure this was also the first time I heard about the Bell Beaker culture.

Well Rich S saw it first. He didn't make the mistake of trusting geneticists dating of y lines that I certainly for a few years. My policy was trust the geneticists on genetic dating and my contribution could be looking at the archaeology of the periods they had dated yDNA lines to. I never dreamed just how much they could be wrong be on dating. But I trusted the geneticists were surely not too far off in their dating. Big mistake- which is why I did a lot of pointless speculation on the west European palaeolithic in my early years on DNA rootsweb. It was only when the M269xP312 mega group was split by new work that this all changed. I certainly could see that P312 resembled the beaker distribution but then there was a phase when all the STR based dates were too young to make sense of with P312 etc being placed around 1500BC. I had a few PM or email discussions with Ken N about his STR dates and how his dates would fall into line with archaeology if they were about 30% younger and P312 dated to 2500BC but he eventually got annoyed with me

rms2
04-02-2018, 10:03 PM
Actually the very first person to spot the connection between P312 and Bell Beaker was Rick Arnold, back on the old dna forums in 2009, as I recall. He specifically predicted L21's connection to Bell Beaker, too. Rick had just finished reading Hubert's book, The History of the Celtic People, which spends a lot of time on Bell Beaker, and it struck him that BB made sense for P312 in general and for L21 in Britain and Ireland. Smart guy. He recommended the book to me, which is the reason I bought and read it.

Rick posted a lot at dna forums. He still lurks here as "Rick", but he hardly ever posts. He's a psychologist, so I imagine he's busy with patients.

rms2
04-02-2018, 10:37 PM
Well Rich S saw it first . . .

What I like to think I was one of the first to get right was the connection between R1b and the early Indo-Europeans. I drew all kinds of fire and derision for daring to stick my neck out on that, first, at FTDNA's forum back in 2006, then, later that same year, at dna forums. That was back when R1b-in-the-FC-LGM-Refuge was considered part of the canon of sacred scripture. You would have thought I was murdering babies and drinking their blood, given the reaction I got.

Another thing you and I both (and I think Mike Walsh) got right was noticing the pretty obvious differences between early Iberian Bell Beaker and Kurgan Bell Beaker and thinking they were important enough to indicate that there were two distinctly different kinds of Bell Beaker people.

Olalde et al really vindicated us on that. It was particularly satisfying.

jdean
04-02-2018, 10:39 PM
Actually the very first person to spot the connection between P312 and Bell Beaker was Rick Arnold, back on the old dna forums in 2009, as I recall. He specifically predicted L21's connection to Bell Beaker, too. Rick had just finished reading Hubert's book, The History of the Celtic People, which spends a lot of time on Bell Beaker, and it struck him that BB made sense for P312 in general and for L21 in Britain and Ireland. Smart guy. He recommended the book to me, which is the reason I bought and read it.

Rick posted a lot at dna forums. He still lurks here as "Rick", but he hardly ever posts. He's a psychologist, so I imagine he's busy with patients.

Lot of smart people who are still posting, you and Alan for starters, but also many we've lost saddest most recently being Jean Manco.

I remember the arguments over that old fudge factor (can't remember what it was called now) that made STR estimates ridiculously old and the work Ken Nordtvedt and others put into rationalizing that approach but this was then followed by others who used their ideas but without understanding and TMRCA calculations that were ridiculously young, we've come a long way since then : )

Rick
04-02-2018, 11:33 PM
Actually the very first person to spot the connection between P312 and Bell Beaker was Rick Arnold, back on the old dna forums in 2009, as I recall. He specifically predicted L21's connection to Bell Beaker, too. Rick had just finished reading Hubert's book, The History of the Celtic People, which spends a lot of time on Bell Beaker, and it struck him that BB made sense for P312 in general and for L21 in Britain and Ireland. Smart guy. He recommended the book to me, which is the reason I bought and read it.

Rick posted a lot at dna forums. He still lurks here as "Rick", but he hardly ever posts. He's a psychologist, so I imagine he's busy with patients.

Thank you for remembering me my old friend. Even a blind squirrel sometimes finds a nut. I had some really bad ideas too but it is nice that the beakers seem to have worked out. Now, back to my hole.

Rick
04-02-2018, 11:39 PM
What I like to think I was one of the first to get right was the connection between R1b and the early Indo-Europeans. I drew all kinds of fire and derision for daring to stick my neck out on that, first, at FTDNA's forum back in 2006, then, later that same year, at dna forums. That was back when R1b-in-the-FC-LGM-Refuge...
.

Yes you were. I was there and remember it well. In fact your postings and mapping of correlations between r1a and r1b and the centum and sated split provided an introduction to linguistics for me, which has been very enjoyable since. But, yeah, you got quite a few folks riled up with that proposition

rms2
04-02-2018, 11:49 PM
Yes you were. I was there and remember it well. In fact your postings and mapping of correlations between r1a and r1b and the centum and sated split provided an introduction to linguistics for me, which has been very enjoyable since. But, yeah, you got quite a few folks riled up with that proposition

There are a couple of them from those old days who are here now. They still hate me like it's my fault the Iberian Refuge fell by the wayside.

Kwheaton
04-02-2018, 11:58 PM
I have been a long time lurker in these Ancient DNA discussions cutting my teeth over on the old DNA forums---so many have taught me so much...thanks for letting me detour down memory lane. I have never had much skin in the game and am just happy to follow along the various DNA threads wherever they lead. The more invested one is in a particular position the more you have to lose but the more you have to gain...We learn best by mistakes. I will sorely miss Jean Manco as her posts, website and two books (that I own) really helped me to grasp the landscape. That and David Anthony's Book, Savante Pääbo and now David Reich's. It is amazing where we have travelled since my first DNA jaunts in 2011.

faulconer
04-03-2018, 01:05 AM
The last couple of posts brought back a lot of memories. I signed up for dna-forums in April of 2007 and have been a daily reader since (now on anthrogenica obviously). I am very thankful for the education I have received from the people who have contributed so much here. Wish I had more to contribute!

Finn
04-03-2018, 11:20 AM
-
U106 was small group in CWC. So far, only RISE1 belonged to R1b while the other CWC samples are mostly R1a. However, these findings doesn't appear to fall into exactly the places we need it. We need more samples from CWC Eastern Germany and (Western) Poland etc.


The grave of Rise98 gives no doubtless indication. Empty hands.
In the admixtures he comes close to Unetice (MDLP K11) and Bell Beaker Germany (K12 Punt DNAL)
In the Archaic 1:1 he is at 3.0 cM resembling only Rise 150 Unetice, Silezia, Poland and LBK Stuttgart etc. not very Corded like.

https://www.mupload.nl/img/n7sb8807pmt6.0.gif

Davidski three years ago:

Yeah, it looks to me as if the authors are hedging their bets about RISE98. They classify RISE94 as baCw and Battle-Axe in the supp info, but RISE98 gets baSca and Battle-Axe/Nordic LN. See supp info tables 1 and 9.
Also, the fact that RISE98 is R1b-U106 and clusters in a different part of the plot than the R1a RISE94 is probably a hint that the Battle-Axe classification for the former doesn't fit. But maybe he's from a different Battle-Axe group? Dunno


What's the point people still qualify, with a a smile ;) Rise98= Battle Axe.

I see no other reason than wishfull thinking.....

rms2
04-03-2018, 11:32 AM
. . .


What's the point people still qualify, with a a smile ;) Rise98= Battle Axe.

I see no other reason than wishfull thinking.....

The problem with that, Finn, is that RISE98 was recovered from a Battle Axe cemetery in Sweden and he is once again the oldest U106 sample we have.

Are you running the other Battle Axe samples against Unetice?

Corded Ware was a factor in the make-up of Unetice.

It seems to me the burden of proof is always on the person arguing that a skeleton belongs to some culture other than the one in whose context it was recovered. Thus it isn't the people who believe RISE98 is a Battle Axe sample who are doing the wishful thinking. They are just taking the cultural context of Lilla Beddinge at face value.

The one doing the wishful thinking is perhaps the one who, for some unknown reason, really desperately wants RISE98 to belong to some culture other than the one in whose cemetery he was interred.

Finn
04-03-2018, 12:08 PM
The problem with that, Finn, is that RISE98 was recovered from a Battle Axe cemetery in Sweden and he is once again the oldest U106 sample we have.

Are you running the other Battle Axe samples against Unetice?

Corded Ware was a factor in the make-up of Unetice.

It seems to me the burden of proof is always on the person arguing that a skeleton belongs to some culture other than the one in whose context it was recovered. Thus it isn't the people who believe RISE98 is a Battle Axe sample who are doing the wishful thinking. They are just taking the cultural context of Lilla Beddinge at face value.

The one doing the wishful thinking is perhaps the one who, for some unknown reason, really desperately wants RISE98 to belong to some culture other than the one in whose cemetery he was interred.

Serious rms2 that can't be presented as evidence, the fact that it once has been used as..... That's nada.

It was LN/EBA a period full of development. Battle Axe was c. 2900 BCE – circa 2350 BCE, the range of Rise 98 is 2275-2032 calBC (Davidski). So not automatically: label Battle Axe.

It's simply unresponsible, and with the knowledge we have at this moment(!) even misleading to label it as Battle Axe!

rms2
04-03-2018, 12:19 PM
You know that precisely that exactly in the year 2350 BC Battle Axe officially discontinued use of Lilla Beddinge, so that any burials after that date, even in the very same cemetery, cannot be regarded as Battle Axe but should instead be regarded as foreign, perhaps Unetice or Bell Beaker?

Have any Unetice burials, settlements or artifacts ever been found in Sweden? I know Bell Beaker is missing from there.

I haven't read this paper (http://rcin.org.pl/Content/54762/WA308_74895_P244_Journey-to-murder-At_I.pdf), but evidently it tells the story of a young man's Bronze Age journey from Sweden to Silesia, where he was evidently murdered by some Unetice people, along with two females and a child.

Finn
04-03-2018, 12:30 PM
You know that precisely that exactly in the year 2350 BC Battle Axe officially discontinued use of Lilla Beddinge, so that any burials after that date, even in the very same cemetery, cannot be regarded as Battle Axe but should instead be regarded as foreign, perhaps Unetice or Bell Beaker?

Have any Unetice burials, settlements or artifacts ever been found in Sweden? I know Bell Beaker is missing from there.

I haven't read this paper (http://rcin.org.pl/Content/54762/WA308_74895_P244_Journey-to-murder-At_I.pdf), but evidently it tells the story of a young man's Bronze Age journey from Sweden to Czech Silesia, where he was evidently murdered by some Unetice people, along with two females.

You use a lot of rhetorica Rms2! In Dutch we call this "jij-bak", you respond it with some counter questions about Unetice.

The simple thing is can this be qualified responsible as a Battle Axe. The burying gives no prove. The timing is not Battle Axe. Of course this is not strict. But it works not the other way around. Because when the timing is your only argument then you have a bad case....

The question what if not....is secundair.

Finn
04-03-2018, 12:38 PM
You know that precisely that exactly in the year 2350 BC Battle Axe officially discontinued use of Lilla Beddinge, so that any burials after that date, even in the very same cemetery, cannot be regarded as Battle Axe but should instead be regarded as foreign, perhaps Unetice or Bell Beaker?

Have any Unetice burials, settlements or artifacts ever been found in Sweden? I know Bell Beaker is missing from there.

I haven't read this paper (http://rcin.org.pl/Content/54762/WA308_74895_P244_Journey-to-murder-At_I.pdf), but evidently it tells the story of a young man's Bronze Age journey from Sweden to Czech Silesia, where he was evidently murdered by some Unetice people, along with two females.


By the way many many thanks for the paper!!!

Can give some clue, because do you think it was a one way street?

But I will read this first....reaction later on!

PS Boy oh boy you know where Rise 150, the "far nephew";) of Rise 98 came from indeed: Unetice, Silezia Poland!

rms2
04-03-2018, 01:13 PM
By the way many many thanks for the paper!!!

Can give some clue, because do you think it was a one way street?

But I will read this first....reaction later on!

PS Boy oh boy you know where Rise 150, the "far nephew";) of Rise 98 came from indeed: Unetice, Silezia Poland!

Has it occurred to you that perhaps the U106 in Unetice came from Sweden (i.e., the Baltic) rather than the other way around? You already have one example of a young man from Sweden going to Silesia (although we don't know his y-dna haplogroup), and we know that RISE98 predates that Unetice U106.

rms2
04-03-2018, 01:20 PM
BTW, now I have read that paper by Dalia Anna Pokutta that I posted the link to above. Very interesting (even if the English is sometimes a little shaky). Wish they had some dna on that burial.

In my first post on it I mistakenly wrote Czech Silesia, when the burial was actually in Polish Silesia.

Finn
04-03-2018, 01:24 PM
Has it occurred to you that perhaps the U106 in Unetice came from Sweden (i.e., the Baltic) rather than the other way around? You already have one example of a young man from Sweden going to Silesia (although we don't know his y-dna haplogroup), and we know that RISE98 predates that Unetice U106.

Is possible, but for various reasons the reverse (Unetice> Scania) is more likely.

rms2
04-03-2018, 01:29 PM
Is possible, but for various reasons the reverse (Unetice> Scania) is more likely.

I don't agree. Why should south to north be more likely than north to south, especially when RISE98 predates that U106 Unetice and we already know from Pokutta's paper of at least one example of migration from Sweden to Unetice territory?

As I recall, RISE98 groups with modern Swedes autosomally, not with Poles or Czechs.

Finn
04-03-2018, 01:39 PM
Yep and they were killed ;)

As said Unetice was the power house at that time. Quite expansive. R1b U106 was part of Unetice. So the spread by it is no idee fixe. There was no expanding culture from Scania at that time.

That one sample predates another can be part of the randomness of the finds, is no absolutness. By the way the ranges of the findings are always quite big.

Tomenable can tell you anything about the relationship from Poles like him with Unetice.

Population developments later on can flush older layers away

R.Rocca
04-03-2018, 02:12 PM
I went ahead and asked him about I4178, that Hungarian Kurgan Bell Beaker who was possibly Z18. Alex gave me permission to quote him on it:



The other R1b sample from the same site as I4178 was R1b-Z2105 (I2787). The remaining males (I2741 and I2786) were both I2a.

So, I think we are back to there being no U106 thus far in Kurgan Bell Beaker or maybe a couple of iffy chances that there might have been some.

A couple of things to be aware of. Just about every single ancient sample is positive for SNPs that belong to L21 and to a lesser extent DF27, U152 and U106. This of course is due to sampling bias... at some point, if you test enough modern men, all SNPs will be found in all haplogroups. Many of these SNPs are found in areas of the Y-chromosome that tend to mutate more than others. Some of these are easy to spot (ex. SNPs in the 20 million range) or are too young to make any sense. Almost all are made invalid due to other calls (P312- and/or L21- and/or Z290- etc.).

If we go the completely conservative route, the only thing we can say with absolute certainty is that P312 was in Bell Beaker with L21+ in the isles and U152+ in the East Group. We can add "some form of P312" in the Netherlands as well. This certainty only comes when an SNP shows up repeatedly in a single geography. Some of these U106 will only be made valid/invalid with more sampling, and so all we can do for the time being is wait.

Radboud
04-03-2018, 04:38 PM
-

The grave of Rise98 gives no doubtless indication. Empty hands.
In the admixtures he comes close to Unetice (MDLP K11) and Bell Beaker Germany (K12 Punt DNAL)
In the Archaic 1:1 he is at 3.0 cM resembling only Rise 150 Unetice, Silezia, Poland and LBK Stuttgart etc. not very Corded like.

https://www.mupload.nl/img/n7sb8807pmt6.0.gif

Davidski three years ago:


What's the point people still qualify, with a a smile ;) Rise98= Battle Axe.

I see no other reason than wishfull thinking.....

Why is this post directed to me? RISE1 from CWC Poland was assigned as R1b1 and has undoubtely a CWC association. Check here (https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4657-R1b-findings-by-(Allentoft-et-al-2015)/page5&highlight=RISE1) if you want to know more about the assignment.


About RISE98, it has been known for years that the current Nordic_LN samples(RISE98 included) are closer to Bronze Age populations than to the CWC/Battle-Axe culture. We need more samples from this period to see if there are patterns.

However, this doesn't mean that RISE98 was like a victim of a shipwreck or that RISE98 was some merchant from Unetice Central-Europe. This similarity could have other explanations, this sample could have been a a descendant of a CWC group that mixed with the local populations. Perhaps there was an another (unknown) movement from the Steppe.

RISE98 is from the Nordic_LN I period, this period was relatively stable it is still related to the preceeding Neolithic periods. Therefore we can only classify RISE98 as Nordic_LN, rather than Nordic_LN/EBA. There are no signs of influences from Unetice or Bell Beakers during this time in Scania. Otherwise, I am sure archaeologists would have noticed it. Nordic_LN II on the other hand does have some overlap with the Nordic Bronze Age though. It's also interesting to see that there was a documented movement from Sweden to Unetice.(Although this man was murdered) I hope they can extract some dna in the future.

U106 was part of Unetice Culture yes, but keep in mind that it was already a deep subclade. So all these SNPs must have occurred beforehand, putting the latest possible date for U106's foundation several centuries before the Unetice culture started. If i remember correctly, RISE98 had a rare subclade.

Finn
04-03-2018, 05:52 PM
Why is this post directed to me? RISE1 from CWC Poland was assigned as R1b1 and has undoubtely a CWC association. Check here (https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4657-R1b-findings-by-(Allentoft-et-al-2015)/page5&highlight=RISE1) if you want to know more about the assignment.


About RISE98, it has been known for years that the current Nordic_LN samples(RISE98 included) are closer to Bronze Age populations than to the CWC/Battle-Axe culture. We need more samples from this period to see if there are patterns.

However, this doesn't mean that RISE98 was like a victim of a shipwreck or that RISE98 was some merchant from Unetice Central-Europe. This similarity could have other explanations, this sample could have been a a descendant of a CWC group that mixed with the local populations. Perhaps there was an another (unknown) movement from the Steppe.

RISE98 is from the Nordic_LN I period, this period was relatively stable it is still related to the preceeding Neolithic periods. Therefore we can only classify RISE98 as Nordic_LN, rather than Nordic_LN/EBA. There are no signs of influences from Unetice or Bell Beakers during this time in Scania. Otherwise, I am sure archaeologists would have noticed it. Nordic_LN II on the other hand does have some overlap with the Nordic Bronze Age though. It's also interesting to see that there was a documented movement from Sweden to Unetice.(Although this man was murdered) I hope they can extract some dna in the future.

U106 was part of Unetice Culture yes, but keep in mind that it was already a deep subclade. So all these SNPs must have occurred beforehand, putting the latest possible date for U106's foundation several centuries before the Unetice culture started. If i remember correctly, RISE98 had a rare subclade.

IMO the thing you do in your posting is:
RISE98 is from the Nordic_LN I period, this period was relatively stable it is still related to the preceeding Neolithic periods

So first you nail it to LN and than characterize it as a conservative period, more related to late neolithic.

My perspective is somewhat different, 2275-2032 calBC was NOT a period of continuity, but a period in which we see elements of change. The threshold of a new era, new opportunities, close connections with the upcoming Central European Bronze Age culture called Unetice:

Per Cornell, Encounters:
(https://books.google.nl/books?id=-ZkYBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA69&lpg=PA69&dq=Sweden+200o+BC+Vandkilde&source=bl&ots=kRZiw-tTSE&sig=dsH65gOa6OjmWTh2XwYCq39xWGk&hl=nl&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiHv9_Y0Z7aAhWvsKQKHW1eDSQQ6AEIKDAA#v=on epage&q=Sweden%20200o%20BC%20Vandkilde&f=false)

The increased exchange activity in central and eastern parts of South Scandinavia can furthermore be traced in the development of the house and settlement size...the house sizes changed rapidly and considerably around 2000BC...settlement structure in some parts of Southern Scandinavia even resemble village organization. Moreover the construction of houses in several instances show a similarity with long houses in Central Europe. The settlement of Almhov just south of the city of the Swedish city Malmö in southwest Scania exemplifies how the European exchange system can be traced in the local settlement structure.


And where is Lilla Beddinge: bull's eye!

From the paper of Rms2 about the relationship Unetice and Scania:

Sweden, on the other hand in the Early Bronze Age stayed in economic interaction with continental Europe and the whole Baltic zone thanks to the existence of the Amber Road

Further it stays the case that in the admixtures Rise 98 is related to Unetice and BB. And in 1:1 Archaic Gedmatch it's related to Rise 150 Unetice, Silezia, Poland.

It's time to turn the clock Radboud!

Radboud
04-03-2018, 06:52 PM
IMO the thing you do in your posting is:

So first you nail it to LN and than characterize it as a conservative period, more related to late neolithic.


Erm, that's what not am I saying but Vandekill 2005:


Outline of Late Neolithic Chronology
The Late Neolithic Period may be divided into an early phase and
a late phase based on flint daggers, as described above (fi g. 1). LN I
and II differ markedly from each other. LN I still relates to the pre
ceding Neolithic periods, whereas LN II is more closely attached to
the earliest Bronze Age. A relatively large number of radiocarbon
dates exists for the later Neolithic in Denmark, and these have recently
been archaeologically and statistically assessed, hence allowing
for qualifi ed suggestions as regards beginning and end
points of phases and periods and their floruit (Vandkilde 1996;
Vandkilde et al. 1996


It's obvious that Scandinavian archaeologists make a clear difference between Nordic_LN period I and II. Nordic_LN I period does show strong signs of stability until Nordic LN II. The date 2275-2032 calBC of Rise98 falls within the Nordic LN I period perfectly. (Average date of this sample is around 2150-2155 BC)

Thanks for the link to the book, but the author was mainly talking about the changes during Nordic_LN period II.

Finn
04-03-2018, 07:01 PM
Erm, that's what not am I saying but Vandekill 2005:

It's obvious that Scandinavian archaeologists make a clear difference between Nordic_LN period I and II. Nordic_LN period does show strong signs of stability until Nordic LN II. The date 2275-2032 calBC of Rise98 falls within the Nordic LN I period perfectly. (Average date of this sample is around 2150-2155 BC)

Thanks for the link to the book, but the author was mainly talking about the changes during Nordic_LN period II.

It's very clear stated that the houses chanced rapidly and considerably around 2000 BC. That's Rise 98 time. The 'model' and the exchange is with central Europe. And the Lille Beddinge area is mentioned specifically. How clear is this!

Radboud
04-03-2018, 07:19 PM
It's very clear stated that the houses chances rapidly and considerably around 2000 BC. That's Rise 98 time. The 'model' and the exchange is with central European. And the Lille Beddinge area is mentioned specifically. How clear is this!

Strictly speaking, that was not RISE98's time, RISE98's date 2275-2032 calBC was a bit to early and it still falls within the Nordic LN I period.(As I said average is 2150-2155 BC) It seems the author considers Nordic_LN period II as around 2000-1700 BC, but Vandkilde classifed it as 1950-1700.

Finn
04-03-2018, 07:28 PM
Strictly speaking, that was not RISE98's time, RISE98's date 2275-2032 calBC was a bit to early and it still falls within the Nordic LN I period.(As I said average is 2150-2155 BC) It seems the author considers Nordic_LN period II as around 2000-1700 BC, but Vandkilde classifed it as 1950-1700.

No 2275-2032 calBC is not around 2000BC :frusty:

Finn
04-04-2018, 12:37 PM
I can 'congratulate' the R1b U106 people around here, not only pioniers in Germanic but also in Bronze Age (for NW Europe).

State of the art about Southern Scania (Rise 98, Lilla Beddinge) circa 2000 BC:
(https://www.degruyter.com/downloadpdf/j/opar.2017.3.issue-1/opar-2017-0023/opar-2017-0023.pdf)

Hence, as the Bell Beaker culture ceased and the Únětice culture flourished in central Europe the exchange and contact networks changed in favour of the Únětice area, which influenced South Scandinavia from across the Baltic Sea (Iversen, 2015: 108–111; Vandkilde, 1996, 2001, 2007b).


It is obvious to see the significant enlargement of some of the South Scandinavian houses as a result of the enhanced wealth in the form of metal that can be seen from c. 2000 BC, together with the supposed increase in agricultural productivity. As mentioned above, the increased number of metal objects was due to closer contacts with the flourishing central European Únětice culture within which similar, and even longer, contemporary two-aisled houses are found (Nadler, 2001; P.O. Nielsen, 1999: 159–161; Schefzik, 2010; Walter, Mecking, Wehmer, Jahn, & Birkenbeil, 2008: 7–15). Thus, the occurrence of very large houses probably reflects marked differences in social status and wealth resulting in the appearance of what we can term chieftains’ halls. These large-scale two-isled houses were the predecessors of the three-aisled chiefly halls of the Early Bronze Age representing the consolidation of a social order with accentuated differences in status and wealth (Kristiansen, 2006; Kristiansen & Larsson, 2005: 277–279; Randsborg, 2011)



This brings us to the other significant Late Neolithic feature, metal. Even though limited in number, the presence of metal objects bears witness to the establishment of far-reaching contact and exchange networks, which then developed further from around 2000 BC, as a result of increased links with the Únětice culture. However, the amount of imported metal had not yet reached a level that allowed the creation of formal hierarchies.



The interesting question is of course why metal stayed in southern Scandinavia in the Late Neolithic and not in the Early Neolithic. Except for the external fluctuations in the production and distribution of copper in central and southeastern Europe, one explanation could be a supposed economic surplus gained through a reinforced agricultural focus. This surplus could be invested in trade and exchange with early Únětice Bronze Age communities.


This change occurred (somewhat later) also along the North Sea coast (Elp Culture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elp_culture)) .

rms2
04-04-2018, 05:15 PM
It would be interesting to find out how U106 got into Unetice. I'm guessing - just guessing - U106 was in Baltic Kurgan Bell Beaker or perhaps Baltic Corded Ware (or both) and drifted south, like that unfortunate soul from Sweden in the paper by Dalia Anna Pokutta that I posted the link to in post #273 above.

I could be wrong, but thus far there are no signs of U106 in Kurgan Bell Beaker anywhere else, so it looks like a north-to-south movement from the Baltic into Unetice and not the other way around.

jdean
04-04-2018, 05:43 PM
You know that precisely that exactly in the year 2350 BC Battle Axe officially discontinued use of Lilla Beddinge, so that any burials after that date, even in the very same cemetery, cannot be regarded as Battle Axe but should instead be regarded as foreign, perhaps Unetice or Bell Beaker?

Have any Unetice burials, settlements or artifacts ever been found in Sweden? I know Bell Beaker is missing from there.

I haven't read this paper (http://rcin.org.pl/Content/54762/WA308_74895_P244_Journey-to-murder-At_I.pdf), but evidently it tells the story of a young man's Bronze Age journey from Sweden to Silesia, where he was evidently murdered by some Unetice people, along with two females and a child.

Apparently there's Y-DNA results out there somewhere !!


Preliminary results of aDNA analysis have shown that all three boys shared the same mother, however they had different fathers (pers. comm. B. Gediga, unpublished study)

Finn
04-04-2018, 06:10 PM
It would be interesting to find out how U106 got into Unetice. I'm guessing - just guessing - U106 was in Baltic Kurgan Bell Beaker or perhaps Baltic Corded Ware (or both) and drifted south, like that unfortunate soul from Sweden in the paper by Dalia Anna Pokutta that I posted the link to in post #273 above.

I could be wrong, but thus far there are no signs of U106 in Kurgan Bell Beaker anywhere else, so it looks like a north-to-south movement from the Baltic into Unetice and not the other way around.

You want immediately to set a step further Rms2. It’s one thing to see the Unetice as an important spreader of the Bronze Age annex R1b U106. But it’s roots mmmm.....

As you saw in the paper about people traveling in the Bronze Age from Scania to Silesia they were in a marginalized position.

I guess with the development of Unetice and the partly background of their spread is their warriorhood, the development of a hierarchy, big man, clannish culture.

Anyone a clue what kind of tribes or people introduces this culture about the midst of the third millennium in Central Europe? That must also be the people in which R1b U106 is rooted.

I guess it’s not likely they came from the Baltics or Southern Scandinavia because Corded Ware in these area’s was at that time too much in decline to set the tone.....and I doubt if they developed embryonic Unetice....but may be I’m overlooking something....

May be this gives a clue?


The processes behind the development of this new cultural phenomenon may become clearer if one considers the origins of the new ideology of warriorhood apparent in the most progressive formations of the late stages of the early Bronze Age in the Carpathian Basin (Vandkilde 2007, 129; 2014; the beginnings of the Middle Bronze Age in Hungarian chronology; Hänsel 1968; Bóna 1992; Harding 2000, Fig. 1.3).This factor is particularly relevant in the case of the centralized communities of the Otomani-Füzesabony culture. Its members built impressive fortified settlements, knew advanced methods of bronze casting, and maintained a vast network of contacts that connected the north of Europe with the eastern reaches of the Mediterranean world (e.g., Bouzek 1985; Furmánek, Veliačik, Vladár 1991; Kristiansen, Larrson 2005; David 2007).


https://indo-european.eu/2018/03/the-origins-of-the-tumulus-culture-proto-lusatian-and-potential-proto-balto-slavic-origins/

rms2
04-04-2018, 06:19 PM
Unetice didn't spring out of nowhere. It evolved from what came before, namely Corded Ware and Kurgan Bell Beaker. We don't have any U106 in Kurgan Bell Beaker or Corded Ware (yet). We do have it up on the north side of the Baltic at Lilla Beddinge, but not as Kurgan Bell Beaker, Corded Ware, or as Unetice. There it is in a cemetery you tell us was once Nordic Battle Axe but was closed for that kind of business by the time our lonely, outcast, RISE98 U106 was interred there. If we wrote his story, the title might be Skeleton Without a Culture (subtitle: Nobody Wants the Poor Bastard).

About 500 years or so later we find another U106 under a mound in Oostwoud, but he's not Kurgan Bell Beaker, nor is he Unetice or before Unetice, so he cannot tell us much about how U106 got into Unetice.

Meanwhile, in Unetice, we have (if I recall correctly) three I2a's and one U106. So, thus far, Unetice is 75% I2a and only 25% U106.

Finn
04-04-2018, 06:27 PM
Unetice didn't spring out of nowhere. It evolved from what came before, namely Corded Ware and Kurgan Bell Beaker. We don't have any U106 in Kurgan Bell Beaker or Corded Ware (yet). We do have it up on the north side of the Baltic at Lilla Beddinge, but not as Kurgan Bell Beaker, Corded Ware, or as Unetice. There it is in a cemetery you tell us was once Nordic Battle Axe but was closed for that kind of business by the time our lonely, outcast, RISE98 U106 was interred there. If we wrote his story, the title might be Skeleton Without a Culture (subtitle: Nobody Wants the Poor Bastard).

About 500 years or so later we find another U106 under a mound in Oostwoud, but he's not Kurgan Bell Beaker, nor is he Unetice or before Unetice, so he cannot tell us much about how U106 got into Unetice.

Meanwhile, in Unetice, we have (if I recall correctly) three I2a's and one U106. So, thus far, Unetice is 75% I2a and only 25% U106.

I guess in the question of the roots of R1b U106 in Unetice we simply are cutting with a knife in fog.

Oostwoud is Tumulus, "MBA-style" buried according to Prof. Fokkens. Unetice had a major stronghold in North Dutch. The Oostwoud area provided some amber. So in this respect don't exclude a thing Rms2.....

rms2
04-04-2018, 06:29 PM
I guess in the question of the roots of R1b U106 in Unetice we simply are cutting with a knife in fog.

Oostwoud is Tumulus, "MBA-style" buried according to Prof. Fokkens. Unetice had a major stronghold in North Dutch. The Oostwoud area provided some amber. So in this respect don't exclude a thing Rms2.....

I wasn't excluding. What I said was that Oostwoud is too late to tell us anything about how U106 got into Unetice. Personally, I see that U106 in Oostwoud as a Scandinavian influence.

BTW, here's my honest take on the arguments against RISE98 belonging to Nordic Battle Axe (because I was around when they began). The objections against him were primarily raised by R1a guys who were anxious to keep Corded Ware R1b-free. That's it in a nutshell. Now you've adopted the same arguments to keep U106 Swede-free.

Finn
04-04-2018, 06:44 PM
I wasn't excluding. What I said was that Oostwoud is too late to tell us anything about how U106 got into Unetice. Personally, I see that U106 in Oostwoud as a Scandinavian influence.

BTW, here's my honest take on the arguments against RISE98 belonging to Nordic Battle Axe (because I was around when they began). The objections against him were primarily raised by R1a guys who were anxious to keep Corded Ware R1b-free. That's it in a nutshell. Now you've adopted the same arguments to keep U106 Swede-free.

I’m no player nor interested in YDNA clannism.... I’m too libertarian for that kind of stuff. Just curios an interested in the linkages anthro archeo and genetica. I think that the Unetice stronghold in North Dutch can most probably linked with similar groups in Niedersachsen. And yes they also traded with Scandinavia, espially in MBA and LBA.
But Vicky the Viking came later :biggrin1:

rms2
04-04-2018, 06:47 PM
I think we're talking about Ulf the U106 in this case, whose cousins back home in Scania would later become Vikings.

:beerchug:

Radboud
04-04-2018, 06:48 PM
Meanwhile, in Unetice, we have (if I recall correctly) three I2a's and one U106. So, thus far, Unetice is 75% I2a and only 25% U106.


There were more Czech_EBA samples from Bell Beaker behemoth, I presume that Czech EBA is the same Unetice culture. There is also a P312+ sample, interesting.

I4884 Czech_EBA Czech Republic I2c1
I5037 Czech_EBA Czech Republic R
I5042 Czech_EBA Czech Republic R1
I5043 Czech_EBA Czech Republic G2a2a1a2
I7196 Czech_EBA Czech Republic R1b1a1a2a1a1c1a (The U106 sample)
I7197 Czech_EBA Czech Republic I2a1
I7199 Czech_EBA Czech Republic I2c1
I7202 Czech_EBA Czech Republic R1b1a1a2a1a2 (P312)
I7203 Czech_EBA Czech Republic R1

There were three I2+ samples from Unetice Germany in the Haak 2015 paper. Perhaps you are talking about these three samples?

I0114 I2a2 Esperstedt
I0116 I2c2 Esperstedt
I0804 I2 Eulau

Based on the current samples, it seems that I2 had a significant presence in Unetice Culture.

rms2
04-04-2018, 07:03 PM
There were more Czech_EBA samples from Bell Beaker behemoth, I presume that Czech EBA is the same Unetice culture. There is also a P312+ sample, interesting.

I4884 Czech_EBA Czech Republic I2c1
I5037 Czech_EBA Czech Republic R
I5042 Czech_EBA Czech Republic R1
I5043 Czech_EBA Czech Republic G2a2a1a2
I7196 Czech_EBA Czech Republic R1b1a1a2a1a1c1a (The U106 sample)
I7197 Czech_EBA Czech Republic I2a1
I7199 Czech_EBA Czech Republic I2c1
I7202 Czech_EBA Czech Republic R1b1a1a2a1a2 (P312)
I7203 Czech_EBA Czech Republic R1

There were three I2+ samples from Unetice Germany in the Haak 2015 paper. Perhaps you are talking about these three samples?

I0114 I2a2 Esperstedt
I0116 I2c2 Esperstedt
I0804 I2 Eulau

Based on the current samples, it seems that I2 had a significant presence in Unetice Culture.

Thanks.

The Olalde et al Supplementary Info does not identify I5037, I5042, and I5043 as belonging to Unetice (maybe they did belong though).

I4884 could be, because, after describing the Kurgan BB cemetery at the same site, Olalde et al then says there were Unetice burials there, as well, and includes I4884 among the following: "We analysed 4 additional individuals from this site (2 Early Bronze Age and 2 Middle Neolithic)".

I7196, I7197, I7199, I7202, and I7203 are all identified as Unetice, however. Guess I missed them (except for the U106 who was pointed out by someone else) because my interest when I was reading the paper was Kurgan Bell Beaker.

Radboud
04-04-2018, 07:30 PM
Thanks.

The Olalde et al Supplementary Info does not identify I5037, I5042, and I5043 as belonging to Unetice (maybe they did belong though).

I4884 could be, because, after describing the Kurgan BB cemetery at the same site, Olalde et al then says there were Unetice burials there, as well, and includes I4884 among the following: "We analysed 4 additional individuals from this site (2 Early Bronze Age and 2 Middle Neolithic)".

I7196, I7197, I7199, I7202, and I7203 are all identified as Unetice, however. Guess I missed them (except for the U106 who was pointed out by someone else) because my interest when I was reading the paper was Kurgan Bell Beaker.

Alright, so it's not certain that I5037, I5042, I5043 and maybe I4884 had an association with the Unetice Culture. I was not interested in the Unetice samples either, so I kinda missed them too.(Apart from U106 dude of course)

There are also some samples from Bronze Age Poland. Chłopice-Veselé culture, was this culture a mixture of CWC/BB elements?

I6531 Poland_BA Poland R1a1a Chłopice-Veselé culture?
I6537 Poland_BA Poland R1b1a1a2a1a Chłopice-Veselé culture

rms2
04-04-2018, 07:38 PM
Alright, so it's not certain that I5037, I5042, I5043 and maybe I4884 had an association with the Unetice Culture. I was not interested in the Unetice samples either, so I kinda missed them too.(Apart from U106 dude of course)

There are also some samples from Bronze Age Poland. Chłopice-Veselé culture, was this culture a mixture of CWC/BB elements?

I6531 Poland_BA Poland R1a1a Chłopice-Veselé culture?
I6537 Poland_BA Poland R1b1a1a2a1a Chłopice-Veselé culture

The Oxford Handbook of the European Bronze Age calls Chłopice-Veselé the oldest of the "epi-Corded Ware" cultures (page 817).

Interesting that there was an R1b-L151 in it.

alan
04-04-2018, 07:54 PM
The only concrete inclusion I think is safe is that U106 only becomes visible at the end of the 3rd milleium and it appears to have participated little or not at all in the beaker culture and network. It's also with one controversial peripheral exception not noted i the CW related cultures. The most clearcut thing in its slightly later history is it gains a significant presence in the Nordic Bronze Age. That conclusion isn't based on just a single find.

Trelvern
05-12-2019, 05:30 AM
delete

Trelvern
05-12-2019, 05:35 AM
This looks no coincidence,
Finn [1] "distance%=0.9722"

Insular_Celtic,74.8
Hungary_BA,15.2
Central_Europe,6

[QUOTE=Finn;356088]This looks no coincidence,
Finn [1] "distance%=0.9722"

Insular_Celtic,74.8
Hungary_BA,15.2
Central_Europe,6
Baltic_BA,4




Baltic_BA,4

This is a Tumulus from Drouwen/Drenthe/NorthDutch, my mothers auDNA region:

In the year 1927, A.E. van Giffen (1930, I: pp. 84-93; II: Abb. 78; cf. Butler, 1971, with further references) excavated the battered fragment of a prehistoric burial mound at Drouwen, and uncovered one of the richest Early Bronze Age graves ever found on the North European plain (fig. 16a- c). For richer Early Bronze Age burials we must go as far as the Fürstengräber of the Saale valley in Saxo-Thuringia, or the equally pretentious tumuli on the western end of the Armorican peninsula, or the richest of the chiefly graves of Wessex.

By luck, the central inhumation burial under the Drouwen tumulus was still almost entirely un disturbed when van Giffen got there. He found, in a rectangular pit under a four-post mortuary house, a warrior’s grave, presumably that of a chiefly person. None of his grave goods - the sword with decorated blade; the flanged axe (geknickte Randbeil); the set of finely worked flint arrowheads; the polished whetstone; the flint strike-a-light; the coiled-wire gold earrings - are at all likely to be of local manufacture; they are all rare objects in the Netherlands. Probably the warrior himself came from a distance; though it is of course possible that he was a local figure who had acquired exotic accoutrements. Almost all the items have parallels in the ‘Sögel’ (or ‘Sögel-Wohlde’) group of Early Bronze Age male burials, extending across Northwest Germany to Jutland and Mecklenburg and southward to Hessen, though none of them contain so much of them all together. But, if the Drouwen has shown that the tumulus was surrounded by a ring-ditch some 30 metres in diameter argues that in life he must have had local authority.

The sword came from the Moravian-Hungarian room.....

Even the cloths of Sögel-Wohlde were from a West-Hungarian model:

https://www.mupload.nl/img/ibw8aqor.png

The woman of the Sögel-Wohlde culture in Drenthe/North Dutch were at that time the only one in the Dutch area with amber necklaces:

"The Weser route must, in particular, have been an important north-south highway by which amber and metals were exchanged between Denmark and Schleswig-Holstein, the Liineburger Heide region, Hessen, and other regions of the Central European Hiigelgrabkultur"

https://ugp.rug.nl/Palaeohistoria/article/viewFile/24902/22350

And than a map of R1b S21/ U106, hey an hotspot in North Dutch but also in the Unetice area! ;)
https://www.mupload.nl/img/d8azd2z.gif

https://www.mupload.nl/img/my8ewhzuy.png


http://mobilitas.ri.btk.mta.hu/?media=14th-nordic-bronze-age-symposium&lang=en

Wrap up Vandkilde :



you wrote the beginning of your post about I7196?: R1b - L23> L51> L151> U106> Z381> Z156> Z304> DF98> S1911> S1894. Beginning of the Unetice / EBA period around 2300-1800 BC Tomb 59 to "Prague-Jinonice (" Zahradnictví ", Prague 5 - Jinonice, Czech Republic)
I have exactly the same Y DNA except maybe S1894 (being tested currently)

The calculation (insular celtic 74.8 ...) corresponds to I7196? Is there a Gedmatch code or G25 coordinates for this sample?

Generalissimo
05-12-2019, 06:54 AM
Unetice seems like it had significant influences from Scandinavia. So it doesn't make much sense to posit that U106 moved from Central Europe to Scandinavia.

And it was always very difficult to link RISE98 with Battle-Axe, not just because of the lack of archeological links, but because Battle-Axe moved into Scandinavia from the East Baltic. That was purely R1a country from the Late Neolithic to the Iron Age.

Single Grave is a much better bet for the source of the U106 in RISE98.

Finn
05-13-2019, 08:21 AM
Unetice seems like it had significant influences from Scandinavia. So it doesn't make much sense to posit that U106 moved from Central Europe to Scandinavia.

And it was always very difficult to link RISE98 with Battle-Axe, not just because of the lack of archeological links, but because Battle-Axe moved into Scandinavia from the East Baltic. That was purely R1a country from the Late Neolithic to the Iron Age.

Single Grave is a much better bet for the source of the U106 in RISE98.

Makes sense.

And Single Grave mixed (autosomal) with TRB and Pitted Ware.....


Rune Iversen, "Was there ever a Single Grave culture in East Denmark? Traditions and transformations in the 3rd millennium BC'' (2016)


As it appears from the analysis above, the
situation in East Denmark during the 3rd millennium
BC is culturally rather complex. The
continued use of megalithic entombments and
the almost total rejection of the Single Grave
burial custom show a strong affiliation with
old Funnel Beaker traditions even after the
end of the Funnel Beaker culture. This is also
shown by the continued focus on flint axes/
adzes instead of battle axes that were otherwise
used in very large numbers within the
Jutland Single Grave communities. However,
the adoption of thick-butted flint adzes was
probably influenced by the Swedish Battle Axe
culture, whereas Pitted Ware influences are
visible in the continued use of tanged arrowheads
and probably also in the scattered settlement
pattern.
When it comes to settlement organisation,
the Funnel Beaker lifestyle did not seem to
have been carried on. The actual subsistence
economic strategy in East Denmark is hard to
detect from the few and scattered habitation
sites, but we might be dealing with some kind
of ‘de-neolithisation’ process as stated above.
By all means, we must assume a continuation
of some kind of moderated Pitted Ware lifestyle,
which likely included lightly built houses
and the use of foraging strategies in combination
with mixed farming. Fragmentation of
the settlement pattern and the exploitation of
niche economies seem to form the most likely
scenario during the final Middle Neolithic in
East Denmark.
With an almost total lack of the two defining
elements of the Single Grave culture – interments
in single graves and the prominent
position of stone battle axes – one can hardly
talk about a Single Grave culture in East Denmark.
What we see is rather the adoption of
various Single Grave, Battle Axe and Pitted
Ware cultural traits into a setting that was basically
a continuation of Funnel Beaker norms
and traditions (Iversen 2015).
The reason why East Denmark so conservatively
upheld the Funnel Beaker traditions
must be found in the area’s old position as a
‘megalithic heartland’, which reaches back to
the early 4th millennium BC when dolmens
and passage graves were constructed in very
large numbers. However, as the Funnel Beaker
complex ceased and new Corded Ware customs
gained a foothold in Northern Europe
during the early 3rd millennium BC, new material
elements, such as Single Grave type battle
axes and profiled cord ornamented beakers,
were adopted in East Denmark. Even though
the artefact types changed, the usage and the
social contexts, in which these objects were
embedded, remained Funnel Beaker and the
communal megalithic tombs were preferred
over individual single graves. The result was a
cultural blend governed by old Funnel Beaker
norms and the use of Pitted Ware, Single
Grave and Battle Axe material culture. This
situation continued until the beginning of the
Late Neolithic (ca. 2350 BC) when cultural
and social development took a new course
and flint daggers and metal objects appeared/
re-appeared in South Scandinavia.