PDA

View Full Version : Ancient I-M253 samples list



Pages : 1 2 3 [4]

deadly77
09-17-2020, 04:56 PM
VK337 negative for YSC0000261 (1C), Z2535 (1G), F2642/S2169 (1G), S2166/CTS6739 (2T), Y6231 (1G), A1605 (1A), BY477/A1374/Y15150 (1T), Y7487 (1T), Y6900 (1G), A1395 (4G), FGC19083 (1G).

No call for A196, Y7140, FGC19093 and Z141.

Positive for Z140 (2A).

This rules out a lot that's downstream of I-Z140 so may be a undiscovered branch, may be splitting up a phylogenetic block or one of the single read negatives could be a false negative. Will need a more thorough going through on this one.

JMcB
09-17-2020, 06:18 PM
This is very exciting! It'll be really interesting to see the autosomal DNA of these samples!

For those who may have missed it, Ajeje has posted the ancestry estimates here:

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?17812-Population-genomics-of-the-Viking-world-(bioxiv-2019-Copenhagen)&p=701027&viewfull=1#post701027

mwauthy
09-17-2020, 07:10 PM
I figured out how to analyze the samples. I haven’t been able to check all downstream SNPs for all these samples yet because it’s quite tedious. Preliminary results are that I haven’t been able to get any additional reads for the two I-Z2040 samples. However, VK445 might actually be I-Z2040 instead of I-Z2041 because it has one derived read for the phyloequivalent SNP I-Z2038.

Most exciting is that the other I-Z2041 sample VK446 from Denmark 9th-11th centuries CE has a derived read for I-S16414, I-S22349, and has 3 derived reads for I-FGC24357. I feel that this succession of continually derived reads is pretty conclusive that VK446 is at least I-FGC24357 :)

I’ll check more downstream SNPs for all samples over the coming week.

deadly77
09-17-2020, 07:21 PM
I figured out how to analyze the samples. I haven’t been able to check all downstream SNPs for all these samples yet because it’s quite tedious. Preliminary results are that I haven’t been able to get any additional reads for the two I-Z2040 samples. However, VK445 might actually be I-Z2040 instead of I-Z2041 because it has one derived read for the phyloequivalent SNP I-Z2038.

Most exciting is that the other I-Z2041 sample VK446 from Denmark 9th-11th centuries CE has a derived read for I-S16414, I-S22349, and has 3 derived reads for I-FGC24357. I feel that this succession of continually derived reads is pretty conclusive that VK446 is at least I-FGC24357 :)

I’ll check more downstream SNPs for all samples over the coming week.

Excellent - glad to hear that you have figured it out. You're right - it's tedious. And there is probably a better way of doing it. There are some automated extractors out there but some of them don't get everything and you've probably got a better chance of calling some of the ambiguous ones manually. Plus you can see the region around that will sometimes give you a clue that there's a lot of error.

I used to be able to look at more than one sample at a time in parallel on the same view which sometimes helped although my computer doesn't seem to cope with that these days so right now I can only do one at a time.

And if you think this was tedious, try going through the >300 SNPs on the I1 level for the pre-I1 samples.

deadly77
09-17-2020, 07:30 PM
VK337 negative for YSC0000261 (1C), Z2535 (1G), F2642/S2169 (1G), S2166/CTS6739 (2T), Y6231 (1G), A1605 (1A), BY477/A1374/Y15150 (1T), Y7487 (1T), Y6900 (1G), A1395 (4G), FGC19083 (1G).

No call for A196, Y7140, FGC19093 and Z141.

Positive for Z140 (2A).

This rules out a lot that's downstream of I-Z140 so may be a undiscovered branch, may be splitting up a phylogenetic block or one of the single read negatives could be a false negative. Will need a more thorough going through on this one.

YFull have added VK337 to branch I-A2094 on their tree, so he must have some consistent downstream SNPs for those that override the one-read negatives for Z2535 and YSC261 (or I made a mistake in the BAM).

mwauthy
09-17-2020, 07:46 PM
Excellent - glad to hear that you have figured it out. You're right - it's tedious. And there is probably a better way of doing it. There are some automated extractors out there but some of them don't get everything and you've probably got a better chance of calling some of the ambiguous ones manually. Plus you can see the region around that will sometimes give you a clue that there's a lot of error.

I used to be able to look at more than one sample at a time in parallel on the same view which sometimes helped although my computer doesn't seem to cope with that these days so right now I can only do one at a time.

And if you think this was tedious, try going through the >300 SNPs on the I1 level for the pre-I1 samples.


I had issues downloading the BAM files yesterday so I followed the instructions of “rafc” in the link below using the NCBI website. Do you think this easier way is missing some data?

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?17812-Population-genomics-of-the-Viking-world-(bioxiv-2019-Copenhagen)/page82

deadly77
09-17-2020, 08:00 PM
Now up to 9 samples from this study on the YFull tree:

VK190 I-FGC15549* (this was I-DF29 in paper, Greenland)
VK337 I-A2094* (this was I-Z140 in paper, Öland in the Baltic Sea, Late Iron Age)
VK443 I-S11132* (this was I-L1248 in paper, Öland in the Baltic Sea, Late Iron Age)
VK50 I-Y22923* (this was I-M227 in paper, Viking Age Gotland)
VK279 I-Y10639 (this was I-Z2337 in paper, Viking Age cemetery at Galgedil, Danish island of Funen - this sample econd degree relationship with sample VK144 who was found at the St John's College site in Oxford, England. Given the differing mtDNA haplogroup for VK144 (V1a1) these two could perhaps be half-brothers (with different mother) or a combination of nephew-uncle or grandfather-grandson). So VK144 may be I-Y10639 as well.
VK70 I-Y6374* (was I-P109 in the paper, late Germanic and early Viking Age period cemetery in Tollemosen, Tollemosegård near Copenhagen).
VK281 I-L1438* (was I-P109 in paper, Viking Age burial ground, Bårse, Denmark).
VK176 I-S8175 (was I-P109 in paper, St John’s College, Oxford, mass grave believed to be St. Brice's Day Massacre).

Some of these might move around a bit and probably more to be added.

mwauthy
09-17-2020, 09:03 PM
Now up to 9 samples from this study on the YFull tree:

VK190 I-FGC15549* (this was I-DF29 in paper, Greenland)
VK337 I-A2094* (this was I-Z140 in paper, Öland in the Baltic Sea, Late Iron Age)
VK443 I-S11132* (this was I-L1248 in paper, Öland in the Baltic Sea, Late Iron Age)
VK50 I-Y22923* (this was I-M227 in paper, Viking Age Gotland)
VK279 I-Y10639 (this was I-Z2337 in paper, Viking Age cemetery at Galgedil, Danish island of Funen - this sample econd degree relationship with sample VK144 who was found at the St John's College site in Oxford, England. Given the differing mtDNA haplogroup for VK144 (V1a1) these two could perhaps be half-brothers (with different mother) or a combination of nephew-uncle or grandfather-grandson). So VK144 may be I-Y10639 as well.
VK70 I-Y6374* (was I-P109 in the paper, late Germanic and early Viking Age period cemetery in Tollemosen, Tollemosegård near Copenhagen).
VK281 I-L1438* (was I-P109 in paper, Viking Age burial ground, Bårse, Denmark).
VK176 I-S8175 (was I-P109 in paper, St John’s College, Oxford, mass grave believed to be St. Brice's Day Massacre).

Some of these might move around a bit and probably more to be added.

Do you think YFull is doing this proactively for all the samples or are people contacting YFull regarding particular samples? I’m wondering if I should email them regarding VK446?

romelson
09-17-2020, 09:05 PM
Are you using samtools for analyzing the VK BAM files?
I just installed samtools in Ubuntu and downloaded a couple of VK BAM-files to have look if I can figure further haplogroup designation for some of the I1 samples.
I am well familiar with BigY:s, Y-haplotrees, private SNPs and administrate several projects at FTDNA.
But have never used samtools before. Is there some good tutorial for how to go about next to analyze the BAM files?

mwauthy
09-17-2020, 10:00 PM
I figured out how to analyze the samples. I haven’t been able to check all downstream SNPs for all these samples yet because it’s quite tedious. Preliminary results are that I haven’t been able to get any additional reads for the two I-Z2040 samples. However, VK445 might actually be I-Z2040 instead of I-Z2041 because it has one derived read for the phyloequivalent SNP I-Z2038.

Most exciting is that the other I-Z2041 sample VK446 from Denmark 9th-11th centuries CE has a derived read for I-S16414, I-S22349, and has 3 derived reads for I-FGC24357. I feel that this succession of continually derived reads is pretty conclusive that VK446 is at least I-FGC24357 :)

I’ll check more downstream SNPs for all samples over the coming week.


So for VK446 I have positive SNPs for 4 consecutive subclade branches:

I-S18588 pyloequivalent of I-S26361 >
I-S16414 >
I-FGC24354 and I-S22349 >
I-FGC24357

mwauthy
09-17-2020, 10:08 PM
Are you using samtools for analyzing the VK BAM files?
I just installed samtools in Ubuntu and downloaded a couple of VK BAM-files to have look if I can figure further haplogroup designation for some of the I1 samples.
I am well familiar with BigY:s, Y-haplotrees, private SNPs and administrate several projects at FTDNA.
But have never used samtools before. Is there some good tutorial for how to go about next to analyze the BAM files?


I’m using this website:


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/projects/sviewer/?id=CM000686.1&srz=ERR4059742

Instead of “ERR4059742” put in the label of your particular Viking Study sample which can be found at this website:

https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJEB37976

In the tab that says “Find” put in the Hg19 base pair location for the particular SNP you’re looking at. I used YFull to find the Hg19 locations but I heard Ybrowse works too.

deadly77
09-17-2020, 10:52 PM
Do you think YFull is doing this proactively for all the samples or are people contacting YFull regarding particular samples? I’m wondering if I should email them regarding VK446?

I sent an email to YFull about the paper and a link to the BAM files but I think they were already well aware and likely taking action before that. If I was them, I would be working my way down the list from the highest coverage samples to the lowest. I don't believe that they are doing it individually by request per sample. However, there is no harm in emailing them and asking - they may tell you that the coverage isn't enough for a particular sample.

I'd recommend letting the dust settle on this one. YFull are adding samples to their haplotree, but there will become a point when some samples won't get added because the coverage isn't good enough - see for example the ancient Icelanders paper from 2018 - of the six I1 samples, YFull added 3 to their tree (the ones with the best coverage) but left the three with the worst coverage off. After YFull have added all that they are going to add, we can pick the bones out of the remaining ones.

deadly77
09-17-2020, 10:59 PM
Are you using samtools for analyzing the VK BAM files?
I just installed samtools in Ubuntu and downloaded a couple of VK BAM-files to have look if I can figure further haplogroup designation for some of the I1 samples.
I am well familiar with BigY:s, Y-haplotrees, private SNPs and administrate several projects at FTDNA.
But have never used samtools before. Is there some good tutorial for how to go about next to analyze the BAM files?

I'm using IGV from the Broad Institute http://software.broadinstitute.org/software/igv/ Don't have any familiarity with samtools or linux/unix systems or Ubuntu. The Dante Labs and Nebula Genomics Customers Facebook group seems to have a few people who are into samtools, etc. so would try there for questions/tutorials.

JMcB
09-18-2020, 12:28 AM
I sent an email to YFull about the paper and a link to the BAM files but I think they were already well aware and likely taking action before that. If I was them, I would be working my way down the list from the highest coverage samples to the lowest. I don't believe that they are doing it individually by request per sample. However, there is no harm in emailing them and asking - they may tell you that the coverage isn't enough for a particular sample.

I'd recommend letting the dust settle on this one. YFull are adding samples to their haplotree, but there will become a point when some samples won't get added because the coverage isn't good enough - see for example the ancient Icelanders paper from 2018 - of the six I1 samples, YFull added 3 to their tree (the ones with the best coverage) but left the three with the worst coverage off. After YFull have added all that they are going to add, we can pick the bones out of the remaining ones.

It’s nice to see they’re going up so quickly. Needless to say, it makes sense for them to add all that they can responsibly. Depending on the sample’s quality. As it’s a nice feature for their tree and I suspect their normal submissions have probably suffered because of the Bam file tax.

Salamander
09-18-2020, 12:42 AM
I would be very wary of a 67 marker match, especially once it becomes quite close to being a low probability of a shared recent common ancestor. I say this because I have several 67 marker matches to individuals with ancestors who originated not too far from where my paternal lineage is believed to have come from. Initially, I would have assumed a recent connection, but Big Y testing has shown that the connection is much further back in time and definitely before the advent of surnames.

I'm not sure who this Leofwine of Normandy fellow is? The name Leofwine is a rather Old English (Anglo-Saxon) given name, that I wouldn't expect to see in Normandy. Do the various genealogies for the Claytons have good sources and documentation back to this Leofwine?

The info about Leofwine was posted by StoneMeadow last year (for which my thanks). It can be found at post #472 in this thread. I can't vouch for its authenticity but I have seen it online elsewhere in greater detail.

mwauthy
09-18-2020, 04:38 AM
I sent an email to YFull about the paper and a link to the BAM files but I think they were already well aware and likely taking action before that. If I was them, I would be working my way down the list from the highest coverage samples to the lowest. I don't believe that they are doing it individually by request per sample. However, there is no harm in emailing them and asking - they may tell you that the coverage isn't enough for a particular sample.

I'd recommend letting the dust settle on this one. YFull are adding samples to their haplotree, but there will become a point when some samples won't get added because the coverage isn't good enough - see for example the ancient Icelanders paper from 2018 - of the six I1 samples, YFull added 3 to their tree (the ones with the best coverage) but left the three with the worst coverage off. After YFull have added all that they are going to add, we can pick the bones out of the remaining ones.


Yeah so far YFull have added 2/4 samples I was interested in (VK521 and VK496) to their Haplotree, and they both have the highest coverage of the 4 samples (4.538 and 1.978).

I do hope though that they eventually add VK446 because it’s the closest to my direct patrilineal line, but the coverage is only 1.531. I’m not sure what their coverage cutoff will be? Anyhow, I went ahead and sent them an email about VK446 in case that helps?

deadly77
09-18-2020, 05:25 AM
It’s nice to see they’re going up so quickly. Needless to say, it makes sense for them to add all that they can responsibly. Depending on the sample’s quality. As it’s a nice feature for their tree and I suspect their normal submissions have probably suffered because of the Bam file tax.

It looks like FTDNA is also adding the samples from these studies to their tree - there's an in progress list here with some comments from FTDNA on some samples about how they split a phylogenetic block or match with a sample in their database https://dna-explained.com/2020/09/18/442-ancient-viking-skeletons-hold-dna-surprises-does-your-y-or-mitochondrial-dna-match-daily-updates-here/

It wouldn't happen, and would be a little bit petty, but it would be amusing if European Nucleotide Archive decided to charge FTDNA $100 for each BAM file they downloaded from this study. Joking of course.

deadly77
09-18-2020, 05:32 AM
Yeah so far YFull have added 2/4 samples I was interested in (VK521 and VK496) to their Haplotree, and they both have the highest coverage of the 4 samples (4.538 and 1.978).

I do hope though that they eventually add VK446 because it’s the closest to my direct patrilineal line, but the coverage is only 1.531. I’m not sure what their coverage cutoff will be? Anyhow, I went ahead and sent them an email about VK446 in case that helps?

No harm in asking - as they say in my part of the world "shy bairns get nowt".

In an earlier post on this thread #442 https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?13783-Ancient-I-M253-samples-list&p=585545&viewfull=1#post585545 I put the I1 samples in order of coverage and mentioned some of the ones that made it on to the YFull tree for comparison. I guess we will see when YFull completes - might take a few days since there are a lot of samples to get through.

mwauthy
09-18-2020, 02:34 PM
No harm in asking - as they say in my part of the world "shy bairns get nowt".

In an earlier post on this thread #442 https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?13783-Ancient-I-M253-samples-list&p=585545&viewfull=1#post585545 I put the I1 samples in order of coverage and mentioned some of the ones that made it on to the YFull tree for comparison. I guess we will see when YFull completes - might take a few days since there are a lot of samples to get through.


VK446 was finally added to the YFull Haplotree at subclade branch I-FGC24357 so I’m a happy man. They even made a note that this sample could hypothetically even be positive all the way down to I-Y125947 on my direct patrilineal line because a lot of the downstream SNPs weren’t even covered on the test.

JMcB
09-18-2020, 02:44 PM
It looks like FTDNA is also adding the samples from these studies to their tree - there's an in progress list here with some comments from FTDNA on some samples about how they split a phylogenetic block or match with a sample in their database https://dna-explained.com/2020/09/18/442-ancient-viking-skeletons-hold-dna-surprises-does-your-y-or-mitochondrial-dna-match-daily-updates-here/

It wouldn't happen, and would be a little bit petty, but it would be amusing if European Nucleotide Archive decided to charge FTDNA $100 for each BAM file they downloaded from this study. Joking of course.

While perhaps petty, it would also be poetic justice but it won’t happen. Perhaps, I misunderstood the article but from my understanding they aren’t actually putting the VK samples on their tree, their using them to make any appropriate changes they come across. Which you can look for in the article as she updates it. So for example, a new branch formed with a modern person, will show that person but not the VK sample. On one of the FB pages Tiger Walsh said he was trying to get them to actually list the samples but I don’t know where that stands at this point.

JMcB
09-18-2020, 02:53 PM
VK446 was finally added to the YFull Haplotree at subclade branch I-FGC24357 so I’m a happy man. They even made a note that this sample could hypothetically even be positive all the way down to I-Y125947 on my direct patrilineal line because a lot of the downstream SNPs weren’t even covered on the test.

Great news! Congratulations!

deadly77
09-18-2020, 09:20 PM
While perhaps petty, it would also be poetic justice but it won’t happen. Perhaps, I misunderstood the article but from my understanding they aren’t actually putting the VK samples on their tree, their using them to make any appropriate changes they come across. Which you can look for in the article as she updates it. So for example, a new branch formed with a modern person, will show that person but not the VK sample. On one of the FB pages Tiger Walsh said he was trying to get them to actually list the samples but I don’t know where that stands at this point.

I meant it more that it was a bit petty on my part for suggesting it, but I fully agree that it would be poetic justice. But yes, it won't (and clearly hasn't) happened, The European Nucleotide Archive is a fantastic resource and it's where I've downloaded the majority of the ancient I1 BAM files that I've analyzed from. And it's freely available to anyone.

Apologies, I hadn't realized that FTDNA were not actually adding the samples to their tree - although it does beg the question of why not? I understand that they might not want to include low coverage samples that might have false positives but surely their analysis would account for upstream validation? As far as I'm aware (and happy to be corrected) FTDNA haplotree includes data from SNP packs and individual SNP tests in their database, some of which would have less detail than some of the samples from this dataset.

As for TW, I find that anything he (or any of his other pseudonyms) is best ignored and taken as seriously as anything bIL wOOd says - to be honest, I'm not fully convinced that they aren't alter egos of the same person.

JMcB
09-18-2020, 11:53 PM
I meant it more that it was a bit petty on my part for suggesting it, but I fully agree that it would be poetic justice. But yes, it won't (and clearly hasn't) happened, The European Nucleotide Archive is a fantastic resource and it's where I've downloaded the majority of the ancient I1 BAM files that I've analyzed from. And it's freely available to anyone.

Apologies, I hadn't realized that FTDNA were not actually adding the samples to their tree - although it does beg the question of why not? I understand that they might not want to include low coverage samples that might have false positives but surely their analysis would account for upstream validation? As far as I'm aware (and happy to be corrected) FTDNA haplotree includes data from SNP packs and individual SNP tests in their database, some of which would have less detail than some of the samples from this dataset.

As for TW, I find that anything he (or any of his other pseudonyms) is best ignored and taken as seriously as anything bIL wOOd says - to be honest, I'm not fully convinced that they aren't alter egos of the same person.


Personally, I thought it was a humorous scenario to consider and enjoyed the irony of it. And to be honest, I didn’t really think it was petty. Just some wry commentary. ;)

Thankfully, we have organizations like the ENA whose interests are in science, not in profit, and people like you who have the knowledge and the equipment to dig into the details. Whether FT will ended up putting them on their tree, I don’t know. Although, I have heard before that there is some resistance to the idea but I don’t know why, or if that’s even true. Perhaps, this is a way for them to use the information and make it available, without having to list the samples on their tree. At any rate, it’s nice to have both analyses. So I’m glad they’re doing it. Whatever the case may be.

oz
09-19-2020, 12:47 AM
I don't think anyone really gives a shit in the other thread, so I'll post here.

According to https://dna-explained.com/2020/09/18/442-ancient-viking-skeletons-hold-dna-surprises-does-your-y-or-mitochondrial-dna-match-daily-updates-here/ this guy is Z63. In the same location as two R1a guys.

Sample: VK157 / Poland_Bodzia B5
Location: Bodzia, Poland
Age: Viking 10-11th centuries CE
Y-DNA: I-S2077
mtDNA: H1c

If I'm not mistaken his admixture looks more Polish-like rather than Scandinavian, which is somewhat baffling, but not really. There were Z63 discovered in that Weilbark culture in Poland allegedly that were supposed to be older than this sample.

Any thoughts?

JMcB
09-19-2020, 02:54 AM
I don't think anyone really gives a shit in the other thread, so I'll post here.

According to https://dna-explained.com/2020/09/18/442-ancient-viking-skeletons-hold-dna-surprises-does-your-y-or-mitochondrial-dna-match-daily-updates-here/ this guy is Z63. In the same location as two R1a guys.

Sample: VK157 / Poland_Bodzia B5
Location: Bodzia, Poland
Age: Viking 10-11th centuries CE
Y-DNA: I-S2077
mtDNA: H1c

If I'm not mistaken his admixture looks more Polish-like rather than Scandinavian, which is somewhat baffling, but not really. There were Z63 discovered in that Weilbark culture in Poland allegedly that were supposed to be older than this sample.

Any thoughts?

If I remember correctly, there were a lot Slavonic warriors in Harold Bluetooth’s army. At least, according to their strontium isotope numbers.

“Later written evidence documents close political and military contacts between the Danish kings and Norwegian and Slavonic kingdoms during the tenth and eleventh centuries. The famous Danish chronicler Saxo, in his ‘Danish History’ gives an account of the reign of Harald Bluetooth and repeatedly refers to Norway and the Slavonic areas as associated with his realm. He also reports that the king, towards the end of his rule and in a period contemporary with the Trelleborg fortresses, based his power on an army composed of ‘Danes and Slavs’. According to a twelfth-century chronicler, the so-called ‘law of the Kings’, retainers became necessary because of the heterogeneous ethnic composition of the royal retinue at the beginning of the eleventh century.”


Who was in Harold Bluetooth’s army? Strontium isotope investigation of the cemetery at the Viking Age fortress at Trelleborg, Denmark
T. Douglas Price1, Karin Margarita Frei2, Andres Siegfried Dobat3, Niels Lynnerup4 & Pia Bennike2

The circular fortress of Trelleborg on Zealand in Denmark is well known as a military camp with a key role in the formation of the Danish state under Harald Bluetooth in the tenth century AD. Taking a sample of 48 burials from the fort, strontium isotope analysis once again demonstrates its ability to eavesdrop on a community: at Trelleborg, the young men in its cemetery were largely recruited from outside Denmark, perhaps from Norway or the Slavic regions. Even persons buried together proved to have different origins, and the three females sampled were all from overseas, including a wealthy woman with a silver casket. Trelleborg, home of Harald Bluetooth’s army, was a fortress of foreigners
with vivid implications for the nature of his political mission.

https://www.academia.edu/11961724/Who_was_in_Harold_Bluetooth_s_army_Strontium_isoto pe_investigation_of_the_cemetery_at_the_Viking_Age _fortress_at_Trelleborg_Denmark?auto=download


I’m curious to know what the Viking paper says about this fellow.

JMcB
09-19-2020, 03:15 AM
Here’s his information:

VK157 Poland_Bodzia E864/I

E864/I – Adult male, weapons including an iron Petersen Type Z sword ( swords of this type
mainly date to the first half and middle of the 11th century CE, i.e. the late VA115; dated 1010-
1020 CE;

[…]

A special role is played here by the tomb of a young warrior (E864/I) buried together with three young women; one of them was placed below him, in what is a two-level burial pit. In his tomb, a ceremonial sword was folded, ornamented in the Mammen style. On the strap-end there is a bident – the tamga of Prince Sviatopolk the Accursed (1015-1019 CE), who was the son of Vladimir the Great and husband of a daughter of Polish king Boleslav I (the Brave).


[…]


The cemetery extends back to the period when the Polish State originated, and also relates to unknown episodes in that state formation, and to the emergence of elites in the early state under the Piasts. The aforementioned features (as well as others) ensure this site’s unique status where Europe’s past is concerned.


You can read more about the cemetery in Bodzia, Poland on page 50 pf the Supplemental:

https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41586-020-2688-8/MediaObjects/41586_2020_2688_MOESM1_ESM.pdf

oz
09-19-2020, 05:25 AM
Mysterious, unique burial, elite warrior... I'm getting some conan the barbarian vibes or something about this guy! haha

Thank you for the link and the information, greatly appreciated!

Kaltmeister
09-19-2020, 08:41 AM
I don't think anyone really gives a shit in the other thread, so I'll post here.

According to https://dna-explained.com/2020/09/18/442-ancient-viking-skeletons-hold-dna-surprises-does-your-y-or-mitochondrial-dna-match-daily-updates-here/ this guy is Z63. In the same location as two R1a guys.

Sample: VK157 / Poland_Bodzia B5
Location: Bodzia, Poland
Age: Viking 10-11th centuries CE
Y-DNA: I-S2077
mtDNA: H1c

If I'm not mistaken his admixture looks more Polish-like rather than Scandinavian, which is somewhat baffling, but not really. There were Z63 discovered in that Weilbark culture in Poland allegedly that were supposed to be older than this sample.

Any thoughts?

I think there is a good chance that Poland as a state was founded by Vikings:

[...] "Wadyl said: “Buried in the central part of the cemetery, they represented the social elite at the time, as shown by the monumental nature of their graves and rich equipment.

“They probably belonged to a group of elite riders, but their role was probably not limited to warriors’ functions.”

https://www.thefirstnews.com/article/archeologists-find-viking-graves-in-polish-village-10034?fbclid=IwAR3ineF1Ra0oSTqynASJRRC-8kUEg1SyUvBJ3XUtqLpBLcNS2eTdDKQnUgg

spruithean
09-19-2020, 01:26 PM
Nice to see another ancient I-Z63 sample!

Also, congrats to mwauthy, that's pretty neat. Here's hoping for some I-F2642 related samples in this study.

deadly77
09-19-2020, 01:43 PM
Nice to see another ancient I-Z63 sample!

Also, congrats to mwauthy, that's pretty neat. Here's hoping for some I-F2642 related samples in this study.

Browsing the list of FTDNA analyzed samples on Roberta Estes blog, VK301 is I-FGC105192, which is downstream of I-F2642. The paper itself listed VK301 as I-Z59, so that's significantly more downstream.

JMcB
09-19-2020, 02:18 PM
Browsing the list of FTDNA analyzed samples on Roberta Estes blog, VK301 is I-FGC105192, which is downstream of I-F2642. The paper itself listed VK301 as I-Z59, so that's significantly more downstream.

Thanks for pointing that out. It looks like he shares that subclade with an Irishman, with a Dane in the subclade just below (FT156954) and two Frenchmen just below that (FT155524)

There’s not too much on him:

The burial ground of Ladby was uncovered west of Nymarksgård near the ship-grave of Ladby, south of Kerteminde Fjord. It was found during the course of gravel digging. It was excavated by the National Museum in 1934-35 and 1938. Ten flat inhumation graves were unearthed. Traces of a wooden coffin were found in Grave 2 (VK319). The grave was oriented northwest-southeast. Grave 4 (VK301) was buried in a supine position with the head resting on a stone. The grave was oriented northwest-southeast. An iron knife was found in the grave. It has been difficult to determine the earliest and latest date for the use of the burial ground, because most of the graves were badly damaged and did not contain any objects that could yield specific dating. Most of the finds were iron knives. A C-14 dating of Grave 4 from 1997 yielded a date of 640-890 CE with +/- 1 standard deviation. Generally, the burial ground is thought to have been in use from about 700 CE to sometime into the 10th century CE46–48.

Samples used for DNA analysis:
VK301 Denmark_Ladby Grav 4
VK319 Denmark_Ladby Grav 2

Supplemental Page 11

mwauthy
09-19-2020, 02:30 PM
Browsing the list of FTDNA analyzed samples on Roberta Estes blog, VK301 is I-FGC105192, which is downstream of I-F2642. The paper itself listed VK301 as I-Z59, so that's significantly more downstream.


Yeah VK446 was initially labeled I-Z2041 by the study. I-FGC24357 is 6 subclade levels below that. I’m very happy that YFull and Ftdna are both double checking these samples.

VK71 is labeled I-S22349 by Ftdna which is also on my direct patrilineal line (I-FGC24354 on YFull). I decided to look at it and I found no coverage for the subclades several levels above it with I-Z2041, I-Z2040, I-Z382, I-S26361 and I-S16414. Even the SNP I-S22349 had no coverage but it’s phyloequivalent I-FGC24354 had one positive read. I wonder if Ftdna was able to find any other evidence besides that one positive read? I don’t think though it will be sufficient evidence or coverage for YFull to add this sample to their Haplotree?

JMcB
09-19-2020, 03:47 PM
Browsing the list of FTDNA analyzed samples on Roberta Estes blog, VK301 is I-FGC105192, which is downstream of I-F2642. The paper itself listed VK301 as I-Z59, so that's significantly more downstream.

I’m not sure if they’re going strictly in order over there but if so, it looks like they skipped VK357 & VK363.

Judging from your numbers they looked reasonable to me but I may be mistaken

VK357 1.387 I-Z140

VK363 1.337 I-Z140


What do you think?

deadly77
09-19-2020, 04:16 PM
I’m not sure if they’re going strictly in order over there but if so, it looks like they skipped VK357 & VK363.

Judging from your numbers they looked reasonable to me but I may be mistaken

VK357 1.387 I-Z140

VK363 1.337 I-Z140


What do you think?

It seems like they're mostly in order, but you're right they do appear to have skipped some. From what I know about FTDNA's analysis, I believe there's an automated first pass through of the data followed by a manual review. My guess is that the skipped ones might have some SNPs that are inconsistent with each other (for example, false positives/negatives from postmortem DNA damage) so they want to take a closer look at those before posting them while some of the later ones in numerical order might be more clear cut. Pretty sure we'll see VK357 and VK363 at some point, although Roberta Estes blog says the list of samples will be updated on business days - so probably won't see another change until Monday.

JMcB
09-19-2020, 04:37 PM
It seems like they're mostly in order, but you're right they do appear to have skipped some. From what I know about FTDNA's analysis, I believe there's an automated first pass through of the data followed by a manual review. My guess is that the skipped ones might have some SNPs that are inconsistent with each other (for example, false positives/negatives from postmortem DNA damage) so they want to take a closer look at those before posting them while some of the later ones in numerical order might be more clear cut. Pretty sure we'll see VK357 and VK363 at some point, although Roberta Estes blog says the list of samples will be updated on business days - so probably won't see another change until Monday.

Thanks, I was hoping that was the case. I usually check her blog everyday anyway, so I’ll look again on Monday. It would be nice to see what those two get.

deadly77
09-19-2020, 04:43 PM
VK363 looks like he is I-Y7278 due to a positive result for phylogenetic SNP FGC64932 and consistent upstream SNPs, but negative for the known downstream clades I-Y10890 and below that, so that's where he branches away from the known tree.

SNP calls for VK363: Y6231+ (1A), Y7397+ (2T), Y7279+ (1A), Y7396+ (1G), FGC64932+ (1A), Y10890/A1471- (1G), A9397- (2G), A2064- (1C).

spruithean
09-19-2020, 04:48 PM
Not to distract from the Viking samples, but forgive me for being really late these quoted posts but...


So the two samples we have on the datasheet in addition to BES1248, using tables S1-1 and S5-1:

Sample ID Cx161: y haplogroup (capture) I1a2b4~. I-FGC3466. Mt haplogroup H1.
Middle Neolithic 2 (5340 +/ 30BP).
ZAC Agora, Cugnaux, Haute-Garonne.

Sample ID FAD9: y haplogroup (capture) I1a2a1a1a3a2b~. I-A11354. Mt haplogroup K1b1a1.
Early Bronze Age (3490 +/- 30BP).
Dolmen des Fades, Pépieux, Aude.

I feel like I've missed this :lol:, interesting. This definitely shakes things up for the TMRCA of I1. I've always found I1 to be odd, bizarre formation estimation to TMRCA. Clearly something is off now that we have I-FGC3466 in the Neolithic and I-A11354 in the Bronze Age. This reminds me of the La Tene I1 sample, this all definitely shakes up what we know and makes me question how certain branches of I1 moved around and when.


Is that under Z58?
So after all these years and hundreds if not thousands of ancient DNA samples across Europe we come to find out Z58 (and possibly other I1a's) might've originated in Neolithic France? That's truly amazing.
And I guess the tmrca estimates aren't reliable.

If I-Z58 originated in Neolithic France that definitely makes things interesting.


If this Cugnaux guy really does turn out to be what they say, we'll all be pondering how he got so far south. He or his Y ancestor could have been anything from a lone traveller to an enslaved spoil of war passed over a long distance, or -- perhaps the most intriguing possibility -- part of a cultural group that had made its way south. This is interesting from a study called "Enclosing the Neolithic (http://www.academia.edu/37746745/Mid-Late_neolithic_enclosures_in_the_South_of_France)", edited by Alex Gibson, because it does point to potential links or influences between Cugnaux and cultures much nearer Scandinavia (where we might most expect to find Neolithic I1) in the forms of the LBK, Rössen (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%B6ssen_culture) and Michelsberg cultures.

It says: "The Chassean enclosures of the south of France are [rare …] The most complete
and recently published results come from the site of Villeneuve-Tolosane/Cugnaux (Gandelin 2011) [...] These southern enclosures appeared later than their counterparts in northern France which were constructed from the end of the Early Neolithic (Villeneuve-Saint-Germain/Middle Neolithic I transition) and are based on LBK models present in Germany and Belgium from the end of the 6th millennium. BC. These were developed in the Cerny Culture and the Chambon Group in the Paris Basin and in the Rössen culture further to the east and their
morphology and sizes vary. It is during the Middle Neolithic II that enclosures become widespread among the northern
Chassean cultures, the Michelsberg culture and the Noyen group [...] Several hypotheses have been proposed to explain the appearance of these sites in southern France [...] The first concerns security and protection (defense of a settlement, conflict between groups, protection of livestock etc) whilst the second is more symbolic or ritualistic (cultural, funerary, display etc)."

I can also see a couple of studies involving isotopes and this site. The only one I can access, "Southern French Neolithic Populations: Isotopic Evidence for Regional Specificities in Environment and Diet", suggests some outlier burials, including in Cugnaux, of people who had moved around during their lifetimes. This range seems to be restricted to Garonne, Languedoc and Catalonia though and of course doesn't tell us where any of the Cugnaux ancestors would have originated.

It concludes: "The presence of outlier individuals whose isotopic data are unique might reveal population mobility, as suggested by other authors in relation to archaeological evidence (flint supply, Vaquer, personal communication)."

I look forward to further developments on this sample for sure.

Edit: added bold for emphasis

Very interesting, thanks for posting.


Who cares what someone decides to call these haplogroups, they're just some letters and numbers someone gave them, honestly I don't care what they call it. I just suggested a practical solution.

Back to what JonikW shared, if these I1a2+ turn out to be legit, what does that mean for the Scandinavian I1a? Are they Neolithic France Jr. now? Lol...

What does it mean for all the I1 all over Europe and elsewhere...do you question the Germanic expansion as the culprit?
Doesn't really seem feasible, because in that case wouldn't they have found I1a samples before at least nearby France somewhere which predate the Germanic migrations? France isn't an island to suggest that I1a was isolated there forever and expanded from there in the late Neolithic or something. If you look at Neolithic hgs that have been found so far and if we compare it with I2 the closest relative, it's been found everywhere in all time periods in big numbers. G2 as well and a bunch of others.

I'm not sure what this may mean for I1 all over Europe. I still think we don't know enough to really argue with any confidence as to whether all of I1 can still be linked to Germanic expansions (obviously a large amount of I1 can still be tied to this). There is certainly more to the I1 story and I fear that a lot of it is getting buried by the vast amount of R1b results in these studies.


I can't see any mention of him elsewhere in the material, but he's in a table with other samples from the study so looks like he is too. Please tell me if I'm wrong...

37764

Edit: added a fuller screenshot

I may have missed it, is there a link to this study that isn't behind a paywall?

JMcB
09-19-2020, 05:02 PM
VK363 looks like he is I-Y7278 due to a positive result for phylogenetic SNP FGC64932 and consistent upstream SNPs, but negative for the known downstream clades I-Y10890 and below that, so that's where he branches away from the known tree.

SNP calls for VK363: Y6231+ (1A), Y7397+ (2T), Y7279+ (1A), Y7396+ (1G), FGC64932+ (1A), Y10890/A1471- (1G), A9397- (2G), A2064- (1C).

Thanks! I didn’t even have to wait until Monday! ;)

JMcB
09-19-2020, 05:15 PM
Not to distract from the Viking samples, but forgive me for being really late these quoted posts but...



I feel like I've missed this :lol:, interesting. This definitely shakes things up for the TMRCA of I1. I've always found I1 to be odd, bizarre formation estimation to TMRCA. Clearly something is off now that we have I-FGC3466 in the Neolithic and I-A11354 in the Bronze Age. This reminds me of the La Tene I1 sample, this all definitely shakes up what we know and makes me question how certain branches of I1 moved around and when.



If I-Z58 originated in Neolithic France that definitely makes things interesting.



Very interesting, thanks for posting.



I'm not sure what this may mean for I1 all over Europe. I still think we don't know enough to really argue with any confidence as to whether all of I1 can still be linked to Germanic expansions (obviously a large amount of I1 can still be tied to this). There is certainly more to the I1 story and I fear that a lot of it is getting buried by the vast amount of R1b results in these studies.



I may have missed it, is there a link to this study that isn't behind a paywall?

I believe it’s behind a paywall but you can get some information from the supplemental data sheets.

Deadly has BES1248 on his map, so you can his details and get the link there. He’s the very last sample at the bottom.

https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1znTXv7qpl4_2T4u9068jOaLzpsjNf62F&ll=43.36121969999999%2C3.426935500000008&z=8&fbclid=IwAR1RFLbSoE4JQWsZg-9sENG0UwjIvTm0DoHgokcIkFcLpRGi9YMSIzjeugI


If I remember correctly, the jury is still out on that paper and some of it’s calls.

deadly77
09-19-2020, 05:51 PM
I believe it’s behind a paywall but you can get some information from the supplemental data sheets.

Deadly has BES1248 on his tree, so you can his details and get the link there. He’s the very last sample at the bottom.

https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1znTXv7qpl4_2T4u9068jOaLzpsjNf62F&ll=43.36121969999999%2C3.426935500000008&z=8&fbclid=IwAR1RFLbSoE4JQWsZg-9sENG0UwjIvTm0DoHgokcIkFcLpRGi9YMSIzjeugI


If I remember correctly, the jury is still out on that paper and some of it’s calls.

There's a little bit of inconsistency in a phylogenetic sense of the SNPs - BES1248 is S10350+ but S22349- (which is on the I-FGC24354 branch upstream) so these two contradict each other and one of the SNP calls is likely false. They are both one read SNPs and any other SNPs on the tree that could corroborate either SNP are no calls. He's consistently I1 with the SNPs on the I1 level, but there's not enough clear and unambiguous evidence yet to classify him as anything downstream of that, so I have left BES1248 as just I1.

The two other supposed I1 samples in that study are have even less data - there are no BAM files for either sample and they may have been genotyped rather than sequenced. They might just be reporting a single SNP call without checking for corroborating upstream SNPs. I tried sending an email to the three corresponding authors - one of them replied that it should be addressed to one of the other corresponding authors (who was copied in to the email) but they didn't reply.

I'd be very wary of taking these two samples at face value without being able to see the data. This reminds me quite a bit of the supposed I-L258 sample from Mittnik et al paper that the age didn't match up and then turned out not to be I1 at all - just had a one-read false positive for L258.

mwauthy
09-19-2020, 09:48 PM
VK532 looks very promising:
I-Z2041: 1 positive read
I-Z2040: No reads
I-Z382: No reads
I-S26361: 1 positive read
I-S18588 phyloequivalent of I-S26361: 2 positive reads
Downstream Subclades: Negative reads

mwauthy
09-20-2020, 02:23 PM
VK532 has been added to the YFull Haplotree at the I-S26361 subclade branch. Dating to 100 CE it’s nice seeing ancient evidence long before the Viking Age :)

JMcB
09-20-2020, 04:38 PM
VK532 has been added to the YFull Haplotree at the I-S26361 subclade branch. Dating to 100 CE it’s nice seeing ancient evidence long before the Viking Age :)

That’s cool! You can follow the tree all the way down to you, yes? You’re at the bottom?

I’m sure you’ve seen this already but it’s always nice to know the details. From Deadly’s map:

Kragehave Ødetofter comprises settlements including 42 houses, 11 fence-structures and
several wells were found dated to the later part of the Iron Age 3-8th century AD. Three inhumation graves were recovered, including this one - an old adult male (50+ years) with osteoarthritis in elbow joints, hips and vertebrae. Significant dental wear, AM loss and crowded teeth.

VK532 Kragehave Odetofter XL718 IronAge_DA276 was reported I1a2a (corresponds to I-Z59) in preprint. No raw data available yet to confirm. Average sequencing depth 4.013x. Dated to the Late Roman Iron Age (C2/C3) (200-375AD).

deadly77
09-20-2020, 04:57 PM
FTDNA list has been updated further, and some of the I-Z140 samples included:

VK337 at branch I-Z61 with comment possible Z140. YFull has this sample further downstream at I-A2094.

VK357 at branch I-A5951, with comment shares 4 SNPs with a man from England. Forms a new branch down of I-A5952 (Z140). New branch = I-FT49567.

VK363 at branch I-A1472, with comment shares 2 SNPs with a man from Switzerland. Forms a new branch down of I-A1472 (Z140). New branch = I-BY198083. I had him I-Y7278 due to a positive SNP for FGC64932 which is phyloequivalent to Y7278 on the YFull tree, while Y7278 itself is a no call in VK363. However, I-BY198083 is parallel to I-Y7278 on the FTDNA haplotree, so there will probably be a reorganization of SNPs around this level somewhere.

mwauthy
09-20-2020, 07:07 PM
That’s cool! You can follow the tree all the way down to you, yes? You’re at the bottom?

I’m sure you’ve seen this already but it’s always nice to know the details. From Deadly’s map:

Kragehave Ødetofter comprises settlements including 42 houses, 11 fence-structures and
several wells were found dated to the later part of the Iron Age 3-8th century AD. Three inhumation graves were recovered, including this one - an old adult male (50+ years) with osteoarthritis in elbow joints, hips and vertebrae. Significant dental wear, AM loss and crowded teeth.

VK532 Kragehave Odetofter XL718 IronAge_DA276 was reported I1a2a (corresponds to I-Z59) in preprint. No raw data available yet to confirm. Average sequencing depth 4.013x. Dated to the Late Roman Iron Age (C2/C3) (200-375AD).


Yeah I’m the Belgian kit at the bottom of that YFull patrilineal line. I’m first generation American but can trace my patrilineal line to Belgium to the 1600s. There are family legends that we emigrated from England prior to Belgium but no real evidence to support that theory. Hoping to solve that mystery one day through more Y chromosome testing of Belgian and British men.

Thanks for the additional details regarding VK532. I’m not sure why a different source mentioned 100 CE for him?

deadly77
09-20-2020, 09:31 PM
Yeah I’m the Belgian kit at the bottom of that YFull patrilineal line. I’m first generation American but can trace my patrilineal line to Belgium to the 1600s. There are family legends that we emigrated from England prior to Belgium but no real evidence to support that theory. Hoping to solve that mystery one day through more Y chromosome testing of Belgian and British men.

Thanks for the additional details regarding VK532. I’m not sure why a different source mentioned 100 CE for him?

That is neat that you're close to one of the ancient samples in the paper - congratulations. Most of the details that I added to the map come from the (very comprehensive and worth reading) supplementary information from the preprint. I haven't had a chance to go into the published paper and check if any of those details have been updated.

I've been updating some of the samples from the map with some of my own digging into the I-Z140 samples and whatever has come out of the YFull and FTDNA analysis - although the map isn't fully up to date on everything and some of the YFull placements might change as analysis completes. It has allowed me to update some of the samples that were just labelled as I1 or I-DF29 in the preprint and paper to be put further downstream and place them into the I-Z58, I-Z2336 or I-Z63 buckets. I've also inferred some placements based on close patrilineal relatives such as the four brothers in the boat burial in Estonia at I-Y141089 and the second degree relatives (half brothers, uncle/nephew, grandfather, grandson) VK279 on the Danish Island of Funen and VK144 at St John's College Oxford (paper hypothesizes this grave to be victims of the St Brice's Day Massacre).

Very much work in progress, but please anyone let me know if you find any mistakes in the map.

JMcB
09-21-2020, 12:07 AM
That is neat that you're close to one of the ancient samples in the paper - congratulations. Most of the details that I added to the map come from the (very comprehensive and worth reading) supplementary information from the preprint. I haven't had a chance to go into the published paper and check if any of those details have been updated.

I've been updating some of the samples from the map with some of my own digging into the I-Z140 samples and whatever has come out of the YFull and FTDNA analysis - although the map isn't fully up to date on everything and some of the YFull placements might change as analysis completes. It has allowed me to update some of the samples that were just labelled as I1 or I-DF29 in the preprint and paper to be put further downstream and place them into the I-Z58, I-Z2336 or I-Z63 buckets. I've also inferred some placements based on close patrilineal relatives such as the four brothers in the boat burial in Estonia at I-Y141089 and the second degree relatives (half brothers, uncle/nephew, grandfather, grandson) VK279 on the Danish Island of Funen and VK144 at St John's College Oxford (paper hypothesizes this grave to be victims of the St Brice's Day Massacre).

Very much work in progress, but please anyone let me know if you find any mistakes in the map.


I did notice that your entry for VK532 actually had more information than the Supplemental’s entry. With more details about his skeletal condition. Which I thought made it more interesting. I figured you found it in the Osteoarcheology section and combined the two.

In one sentence there was an insertion of the number 537. Perhaps, a previous footnote reference?

Kragehave Ødetofter comprises settlements including 42 houses, 11 fence-structures and 537 several wells were found dated to the later part of the Iron Age 3-8th century AD.

davedog83
09-21-2020, 04:26 PM
These DNA results are especially meaningful to me. Like the Cx161 sample, my patrilineal line is also S5619 with a terminal SNP of FGC3459. I would have never guessed that my paternal ancestor lived in southern France. I always thought my paternal line was more northwest Germanic. Very cool!

Amerismed
09-22-2020, 06:21 AM
I remembered doing this in college, gives me so much headache

mwauthy
09-22-2020, 02:17 PM
Deadly77 I noticed on your map that there is only one British I1 ancient dna sample prior to the Viking Age thus far. Is this because there are few ancient dna samples overall thus far between the Migration Period and the Viking Age in areas where especially the Angles settled, or is because the Angles probably didn’t carry much I1 which is more of a Viking phenomenon? Are you aware of any upcoming British studies that might try to differentiate between the Angles and the Danelaw in regards to ancient dna?

JMcB
09-22-2020, 03:54 PM
Deadly77 I noticed on your map that there is only one British I1 ancient dna sample prior to the Viking Age thus far. Is this because there are few ancient dna samples overall thus far between the Migration Period and the Viking Age in areas where especially the Angles settled, or is because the Angles probably didn’t carry much I1 which is more of a Viking phenomenon? Are you aware of any upcoming British studies that might try to differentiate between the Angles and the Danelaw in regards to ancient dna?

As I recall, there are only 8 Anglo Saxon samples at this point and only one of them was a man. So our sampling data is a little limited for the time being. There is a new paper coming out (hopefully) in the near future that may give us some more data but we’ll have to wait and see.


See:
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?97-Genetic-Genealogy-amp-Ancient-DNA-in-the-News-(TITLES-ABSTRACTS-ONLY)&p=700951&viewfull=1#post700951

mwauthy
09-22-2020, 03:58 PM
Wow Ftdna has VK446 downstream of I-BY19383 which is a phyloequivalent of I-FGC75802 (YFull). Looks like this ancient sample might even be closer in time to my direct patrilineal line than I previously thought having branched apart with I-FGC75802 + I-BY19383 instead of I-FGC24357. Cool stuff :)

deadly77
09-22-2020, 05:46 PM
Deadly77 I noticed on your map that there is only one British I1 ancient dna sample prior to the Viking Age thus far. Is this because there are few ancient dna samples overall thus far between the Migration Period and the Viking Age in areas where especially the Angles settled, or is because the Angles probably didn’t carry much I1 which is more of a Viking phenomenon? Are you aware of any upcoming British studies that might try to differentiate between the Angles and the Danelaw in regards to ancient dna?

I think that's mostly due to a lack of samples and studies of samples from that time period, at least among those that have been published in the literature to date. I certainly would not make a conclusion that the Angles didn't carry much I1 on the basis that's there's only one sample. We don't have any other Angle samples that I'm aware of, so could even say that the Angles were 100% I1 based on the results we have. Of course, to do so would be incorrect to make such a conclusion on the basis of one sample. I think the Population Genetics of the Viking World paper having 442 samples is really illustrative in showing the diversity of haplogroups in a population, and it would be nice to have a similar size data set for Angles, etc. I also would not say that I1 is more of a Viking phenomenon - I'd expect a higher percentage of I1 among the Angles, although that is just speculation on my part with no data that currently back that up.

Looks like you're referring to NO3423, the Anglo-Saxon from the Martiniano et al paper in Nature Communications 2016. That paper only included 9 samples - 7 Roman era samples from Driffield Terrace in York, a female from a first century iron age settlement near Melton in East Yorkshire and NO3423 from the Anglo-Saxon cemetery at Norton. The later two were likely to add some compare contrast to the Driffield Terrace samples. If this study had been run later, it might have included more samples. The paper said that at Norton they sampled 3 individuals from unfurnished burials of over 100 skeletons from that cemetery and selected NO3423 as the best preserved. So there was ancient remains to be analyzed, but perhaps they could only afford to sequence a limited number of samples and concentrated on the Driffield Terrace ones.

Only other published work that I'm aware of from this time period in Britain is a paper by Schiffels et al. comparing some Iron-Age and Anglo-Saxon samples that was published in Nature Communications in 2016 here https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms10408 - that one has ten samples, eight are female (inlcuding all of the Anglo-Saxon samples) while the two males were Iron Age - R1b1a2a1a2c at 160 BCE–26 CE and R1b1a2a1a2c1 at 170 BCE–80 CE.
The most comprehensive DNA study from the Britain I believe covered remains from ancient Neolithic Britain, which is quite a bit before the period that you're asking about and there were no I1 samples - mostly all I2, with a few I (probably I2 but poor coverage meant they didn't have the SNP calls.

I've seen a few presentations which include some ancient Anglo-Saxons but they are not very detailed and I haven't seen these published anywhere - for example here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sr2kRkiCiT0&feature=youtu.be mentions some Anglo-Saxon samples from Edix Hill which also appear to be included in this paper on Yersinia pestis here https://www.pnas.org/content/116/25/12363 but at ENA the raw data only includes Yersinia pestis genomes as FASTQ files rather than the human genomes. Maybe those will be added later.

For the future, I'd keep an eye on what Stephan Schiffels group are publishing, since there was this announcement of a funded ERC grant MICROSCOPE project announced last year here to investigate the pre-Roman European Iron Age https://www.stephanschiffels.de/posts/2019-09-23-erc-funded/ and also Pontus Skoglund from the Crick Institute was awarded 1.7m grant to sequence the whole-genomes of more than 1,000 ancient British people, using skeletal samples from the last 5,000 years that was announced last year here https://www.crick.ac.uk/news/2019-10-25_uncovering-5000-years-of-genetic-evolution-from-the-stone-age-to-the-21st-century

As for differentiating between Angles and Danelaw, I think that's going to be very difficult. Both populations originate from a similar geographic region and from time periods that aren't very far apart, especially when you consider our current Y-SNP date age estimations. I think that the broad haplogroup and subclade groups are going to be found in both groups and more downstream subclades we're not going to have enough data to judge that with any level of certainty. But then again, I don't have a crystal ball and we'll have to see some data on this before assessing if that's possible. My hunch is that it won't be.

DonGee
09-22-2020, 07:55 PM
Hello,

RE: #265 VK357 Oland I1a2a1a1a I1-Z140

I am the Co-Administrator of the Hamilton Y-DNA Project at Family Tree DNA and the Administrator of the I1-A376 Y-Group at YFull.
I noticed today that we have a new member (VK357) on the YFull tree at S1961 (I-A376>Y141809>S2000>S1961 to be exact). This is preliminary
so there may even be one more connection made below S1961. Y141809>S2000>S1961 is shared by four very well documented members
of the Hamilton of Raploch family. The most recent common ancestor of this group of four is James Hamilton of Raploch who was born circa 1475 and married
Isobel Weir the daughter of Weir of Blackwood. S1961 had to happen no later than with this James Hamilton of Raploch and probably not
much before this.

About 35% of all Hamilton males are I-A376. We call ourselves Group A in the Project. Ken Nordtvedt has theorized we are Anglo-Saxon.

Please forgive my ignorance about the Viking study. Can you tell me if the two VK357 references are the same? I would like to know more about
this participant? I would really like to bring this sample into the I-A376 Y-Group.

Thank you.

deadly77
09-22-2020, 08:13 PM
Hello,

RE: #265 VK357 Oland I1a2a1a1a I1-Z140

I am the Co-Administrator of the Hamilton Y-DNA Project at Family Tree DNA and the Administrator of the I1-A376 Y-Group at YFull.
I noticed today that we have a new member (VK357) on the YFull tree at S1961 (I-A376>Y141809>S2000>S1961 to be exact). This is preliminary
so there may even be one more connection made below S1961. Y141809>S2000>S1961 is shared by four very well documented members
of the Hamilton of Raploch family. The most recent common ancestor of this group of four is James Hamilton of Raploch who was born circa 1475 and married
Isobel Weir the daughter of Weir of Blackwood. S1961 had to happen no later than with this James Hamilton of Raploch and probably not
much before this.

About 35% of all Hamilton males are I-A376. We call ourselves Group A in the Project. Ken Nordtvedt has theorized we are Anglo-Saxon.

Please forgive my ignorance about the Viking study. Can you tell me if the two VK357 references are the same? I would like to know more about
this participant? I would really like to bring this sample into the I-A376 Y-Group.

Thank you.

Welcome to Anthrogenica. I maintain a map of all the known ancient I1 samples that I'm aware of, and I try to include archaeological context with the samples on the map. The link is in my signature, but because you have less than 10 posts, you might not be able to see it. In which case the link is here https://bit.ly/2Z3CJk7 Basically:

In the island of Öland in the Baltic Sea, many human remains from the Late Iron Age have been excavated from burials and other contexts. There are considerable variations in inhumation burial form (pit coffin, stone cist etc) during the Viking age. VK357 Oland_1097, Kastlösa parish excavated in 1941, a mature male, non local from provenance isotopes.

You might want to check out Roberta Estes blog here https://dna-explained.com/2020/09/18/442-ancient-viking-skeletons-hold-dna-surprises-does-your-y-or-mitochondrial-dna-match-daily-updates-here/which is reporting FTDNA's analysis of these samples. FTDNA are listing VK357 as branch I-FT49567 with comment that VK357 shares 4 SNPs with a man from England. Forms a new branch down of I-A5952 (Z140). New branch = I-FT49567. That's clearly a discrepancy with what YFull are reporting and they can't both be right, so will need a closer look.

If you know how to read BAM files, they are available for this study at European Nucleotide Archive under project PRJEB37976 here https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJEB37976

Otherwise, you can ask YFull to add the sample to your group at YFull - best way would be to send them an email at [email protected] - then you'll be able to look his results for known SNPs in you subcalde.

I'm not sure what you mean about the two VK357 references being the same?

DonGee
09-22-2020, 09:16 PM
Thanks for your reply and for all the information. My reference to VK357 being the same had to do with it being listed in the Viking paper and then listed on YFull.
I see now that YFull has it as Ancient DNA. The Roberta Estes finding seems more likely.

deadly77
09-22-2020, 10:36 PM
Thanks for your reply and for all the information. My reference to VK357 being the same had to do with it being listed in the Viking paper and then listed on YFull.
I see now that YFull has it as Ancient DNA. The Roberta Estes finding seems more likely.

The authors of the Viking paper used an automated extraction tool to assign Y-SNPs, and are using a less comprehensive tree from ISOGG as reference, so their assignments are less detailed than YFull and FTDNA, which have more up to date branches from NGS tests. In most cases it seems that YFull and FTDNA are in general agreement on these Viking sample placements, but there are some slight differences due to some branches represented on one tree but not the other. So you can see in some cases, FTDNA has a more downstream assignment but in other cases YFull does, so it's best to look at both.

However, in the case of VK357, they're on very different branches within I-Z140. It looks like there are six samples on the I-A5996 branch at FTDNA which diverges from the rest of I-Z140 just downstream of I-Z141 (ie, same level as I-Z2535, I-CTS6739 split away from each other). I don't see this I-A5996 branch at YFull, so presumably no one has uploaded to there and YFull don't have this in their database to compare to.

Sometimes the the same SNP can be found in different haplogroups or subclades and I've seen these defined as recurrent SNPs. If YFull finds the same SNP in more than five locations, it marks the SNP as unreliable. I'm not sure what FTDNA's criteria is for those situations. Also, having looked at a few ancient DNA BAM files, these often are not as comprehensive as the Big Y/YElite/WGS tests that we can order for ourselves. There's often sections missing due to damage to the DNA post mortem over the centuries, so some locations we can't read and in other ones DNA damage can lead to a derived result that's not phylogentically consistent with other SNPs - so you can get false positive results. When I review BAM files, I try and make sure that the reads are consistent with phyloequivalent and upstream SNPs, but sometimes due to lack of data in the BAM file it's not always positive to be sure.

I agree that the result reported by Estes in the FTDNA analysis seems more likely. It may be that YFull is seeing a positive result for S1961 but no calls for SNPs at upstream levels (for example, S2000, A376, S1977, etc.) so not enough to disconfirm S1961 as a false positive. FTDNA having four matching SNPs on a branch seems more likely as the SNP calls are consistent with each other. Then again FTDNA may have made a mistake. It probably needs an independent view of the BAM file. If I have time this weekend, I'll take a look and see which placement makes more sense.

DonGee
09-23-2020, 02:58 AM
Thanks for this fulsome explanation of the possibilities. I appreciate your help.

deadly77
09-25-2020, 09:22 AM
YFull have added country flags to the VK samples on their tree. At today's count, they've added 56 of the I1 samples, which is quite a decent haul. Wonder if all will make it or if there will be a cut off for the lower coverage ones?

oz
09-29-2020, 08:47 AM
I think there is a good chance that Poland as a state was founded by Vikings:

[...] "Wadyl said: “Buried in the central part of the cemetery, they represented the social elite at the time, as shown by the monumental nature of their graves and rich equipment.

“They probably belonged to a group of elite riders, but their role was probably not limited to warriors’ functions.”

https://www.thefirstnews.com/article/archeologists-find-viking-graves-in-polish-village-10034?fbclid=IwAR3ineF1Ra0oSTqynASJRRC-8kUEg1SyUvBJ3XUtqLpBLcNS2eTdDKQnUgg

Vk157 might've been this dude, or some kind of connection to it:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sviatopolk_I_of_Kiev

Kaltmeister
09-29-2020, 06:08 PM
Vk157 might've been this dude, or some kind of connection to it:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sviatopolk_I_of_Kiev

From the Wikipedia-article: "The I-S2077 subclade of Y-DNA haplogroup I-Z63 was sampled on an elite warrior buried in Bodzia (Poland) in a rich burial from ca. 1010-1020 AD. All artefacts there indicate a strong relation to the Kievian Rus ruling elite, so this man who probably succumbed to combat wounds, was in a close relationship with Svyatopolk. The cemetery in Bodzia is exceptional in terms of Scandinavian and Kievian Rus links. The Bodzia man (sample VK157, or burial E864/I) was not a simple warrior from the princely retinue, but he belonged to the princely family himself. His burial is the richest one in the whole cemetery, moreover, Strontium analysis of his teeth enamel shows he was not local. It is assumed that he came to Poland with Svyatopolk, and met a violent death in combat. This corresponds to the events of 1018 AD when Sviatopolk himself disappeared after having retreated from Kiev to Poland. It cannot be excluded that the Bodzia man was Sviatopolk himself."

That is very speculative. It is more likely that the same process happened in Russia and in Poland: The founding of a new state, initiated by a Viking aristocracy. In both countries this idea is not very popular - however, we have more evidence in case of Russia. But there is also some indication that the first Polish rulers, the Piasts, were of Viking origin.

oz
09-29-2020, 10:30 PM
From the Wikipedia-article: "The I-S2077 subclade of Y-DNA haplogroup I-Z63 was sampled on an elite warrior buried in Bodzia (Poland) in a rich burial from ca. 1010-1020 AD. All artefacts there indicate a strong relation to the Kievian Rus ruling elite, so this man who probably succumbed to combat wounds, was in a close relationship with Svyatopolk. The cemetery in Bodzia is exceptional in terms of Scandinavian and Kievian Rus links. The Bodzia man (sample VK157, or burial E864/I) was not a simple warrior from the princely retinue, but he belonged to the princely family himself. His burial is the richest one in the whole cemetery, moreover, Strontium analysis of his teeth enamel shows he was not local. It is assumed that he came to Poland with Svyatopolk, and met a violent death in combat. This corresponds to the events of 1018 AD when Sviatopolk himself disappeared after having retreated from Kiev to Poland. It cannot be excluded that the Bodzia man was Sviatopolk himself."

That is very speculative. It is more likely that the same process happened in Russia and in Poland: The founding of a new state, initiated by a Viking aristocracy. In both countries this idea is not very popular - however, we have more evidence in case of Russia. But there is also some indication that the first Polish rulers, the Piasts, were of Viking origin.

What's speculative? That VK157 was the Sviatopolk guy? Probably not. His nickname was "the accursed" and he allegedly might have murdered his own brothers.

And his autosomal profile as far as I'm able to tell isn't Scandinavian or NW Euro, it's NE Euro.

Kaltmeister
09-30-2020, 07:39 AM
If we have the same development in Russia and Poland: Conquest and state-building by Vikings - it is not unlikely that the ruling families in both areas were genetically connected. If the genetical profile of VK157 is NE-Euro, then because these Vikings and their children took wifes from the local population.
I don't say this person is not Sviatopolk, but that assumption is at least speculative.

Generalissimo
09-30-2020, 07:47 AM
If we have the same development in Russia and Poland: Conquest and state-building by Vikings - it is not unlikely that the ruling families in both areas were genetically connected. If the genetical profile of VK157 is NE-Euro, then because these Vikings and their children took wifes from the local population.
I don't say this person is not Sviatopolk, but that assumption is at least speculative.

The idea that Vikings founded Poland is highly speculative. It's more a working theory or even a trend among a certain group of historians than anything else.

However, it's obvious that Vikings were present in Poland, probably as mercenaries, and many of them were probably Rus Vikings, so the eastern autosomal profiles of the samples from Poland fit with that.

Kaltmeister
10-01-2020, 08:59 AM
Generalissiomo: You are correct, the idea that Vikings founded Poland is speculative as well. It is not popular in Poland, so there is little effort to find evidence for this thesis. Also, it is not the topic of this thread and needs to be discussed somewhere else. Just to round up the picture, here is an article from Rose, Kosieck: "Der große Wendig", chapter 124, collecting some arguments on that topic:


It is quite likely that the first gender of Dukes and Kings in Poland , today called "Piasts", is Skandinavian and derives, like the founders of Russia (Rurik), from the region of Oslo. The first ruler beeing named in two documents of his time is called "Dago" or "Dogo", an exclusively Nordic name that never again turns up in Slavic countries. The Poles call him Miseko after his byname Mesico.
The Skandinavian origin is also sure for several more Polish aristocratic genders, that came in the entourage of Dago when he was called into the land by the Polanes.
The Daglinger, which should be the correct name of Dago's gender, had 5 German and Waraegian women until 1138 - and in the following time until 1335 children from 5 German and 2 not-German women, one of which belonged to the Bohemian gender of the Przemyslides. But the Przemyslides were most likely also Vikings. On the Hradschin, in the middle of the castle of the first Przmeslide Boleslaw I., Tschech archaeologists found a Viking grave of equal age.
Dago-Miseko I. (963-993) married in first matrimony the old-German speaking Princess Dubrawka, Daughter of these Vikings from Prague, and after her death 977 Oda, the Daughter of the German prince Dietrich von der Nordmark. The Przemyslides had since Udalrich (1012-1033) exclusively German women. There was no middle-age dynasty outside the German Reich that had more kinship to the German emperor than the Daglinger.

---

The genetic constellation of the Piasts, founders of Poland, is the topic of this DNA-project that will hopefully shed light on their origin:

"Geneticists have taken DNA samples from the remains of over 30 members of the Piast dynasty to determine their ancestry."

https://scienceinpoland.pap.pl/en/news/news%2C80495%2Cdna-research-shed-light-piast-dynasty-history.html?fbclid=IwAR3DIxO0O4xkAFDgm30xH1Q7bFhh wYyGBRUK4JDK6FbE2LNVQ5avt-ZnXMQ

Sassoneg
10-02-2020, 02:23 PM
Hi deadly, I love the I1 map. Is there any reason the Polish study samples are excluded? KO_55 300 AD Kowolewko in the Wielbark. Also about 8 I1 samples in Markowice later, same study.

Strider99
10-02-2020, 03:07 PM
Guys, doesn't it look like it's very likely that VK157 is Sviatopolk I? The date and the princely burial all adds up. Wouldn't that imply that the original Rurikid paternal lineage isn't necessarily what it was previously thought to be? Obviously there is speculation involved here, but still.

spruithean
10-02-2020, 05:18 PM
Hi deadly, I love the I1 map. Is there any reason the Polish study samples are excluded? KO_55 300 AD Kowolewko in the Wielbark. Also about 8 I1 samples in Markowice later, same study.


We've not seen any real information on that besides those brief outlines that were posted quite a while back, so without being able to look at the raw data and verify the I1 position they've been omitted.

deadly77
10-02-2020, 06:49 PM
Hi deadly, I love the I1 map. Is there any reason the Polish study samples are excluded? KO_55 300 AD Kowolewko in the Wielbark. Also about 8 I1 samples in Markowice later, same study.

Thanks - glad to hear that you love the I1 map and also good to see you back here for the first time in a while.

It's basically as Spruithean says above - there's a real lack of reviewable data for me to verify which individual samples from that study are I1. All we have officially is the abstract from a poster presentation in 2017. While the abstract lists subclade data, it doesn't specify which samples are which subclade. The ENA has FASTQ files which I'm not sure how to read/process - others may be able to. I believe some of the specific assignments were made by some members of this forum by using one of the autoprocessing tools at a now defunct site to convert the FASTQ to a BAM and then use another tool from the same site to autoprocess the BAM file and assign haplogroup. I've tried to view the BAM files created by Felix's tool but they aren't viewable using IGV (which tells me that they may not be reliable).

One of the problems that I have with such an approach is that people often cherry pick a downstream SNP without checking for phylogenetic inconsistencies - ancient DNA samples have a lot of one read SNPs which can lead to an assignment due to a false positive - this even happens in published papers - see SVK-A1 in the ancient Iceland paper which is assigned negative for DF29 due to a one-read false positive for Z131 but when you dig further in to BAM file he's consistent with I-FGC21682 (with several upstream SNPs to support this assignment.

We've also seen to one of the samples on the Mittnik et al kinship analysis paper where one of the samples was assigned as I1 due to a one-read for L258, but the age didn't fit. Analysis of the BAM file showed this sample was negative for many upstream SNPs on the I1 level, so not I1. There's also a thread here https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?20521-Y-Chromosome-Haplogroup-assignments-for-2500-ancient-samples&p=672272&viewfull=1#post672272 by kolgeh where he's assigned several samples as I1 and I've been through the raw data and they aren't I1.

I'm not saying that KO_55 - or other samples from the study - are not I1. But if I'm going to put them on the map, I need to have some way to verify that they're actually I1 by looking at the raw data or someone I trust saying the same. Right now I don't. I emailed the corresponding authors of the poster abstract and one of them replied "Yes we are planning to publish our results. Keep in mind that these results were from our preliminary research. Unfortunately I can't give access to the BAM files until they are published." But this was back in August 2019 and haven't seen anything since then.

Strider99
11-20-2020, 10:15 AM
We've also seen to one of the samples on the Mittnik et al kinship analysis paper where one of the samples was assigned as I1 due to a one-read for L258, but the age didn't fit.
.

Hello. This may be a dumb question, but I was wondering, which sample in Mittnik et al 2019 was assigned to I1? I looked through the supplementary materials but I could not find the I1 sample. I know there's a Mittnik et al 2018 as well, could I have been looking at the wrong study? This is the one I searched in: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/366/6466/731.abstract

spruithean
11-20-2020, 03:34 PM
Hello. This may be a dumb question, but I was wondering, which sample in Mittnik et al 2019 was assigned to I1? I looked through the supplementary materials but I could not find the I1 sample. I know there's a Mittnik et al 2018 as well, could I have been looking at the wrong study? This is the one I searched in: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/366/6466/731.abstract

Lech_EBA OBKR_117_d was the sample. It isn’t I-L258, it’s I(xI1).

deadly77
11-20-2020, 05:13 PM
Hello. This may be a dumb question, but I was wondering, which sample in Mittnik et al 2019 was assigned to I1? I looked through the supplementary materials but I could not find the I1 sample. I know there's a Mittnik et al 2018 as well, could I have been looking at the wrong study? This is the one I searched in: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/366/6466/731.abstract

To be clear, the authors of that paper didn't assign that sample to I1 - rather to I - see supplementary table S1. Someone ran the raw data through an automated extraction tool, saw that that sample (OBKR 117) had a positive result for L258 which is downstream of I1, assigned the sample as I1 on that basis. Later on, Generalissimo posted (see post #519 on page 52 much further up in the thread) that this sample was negative for multiple SNPs on the I1 level and so the L258 result isn't phylogenetically consistent with that. Also positive for S294 which is downstream of I2, so those two positive results can't both be correct. The L258 result is a one read SNP and likely a false positive or a recurrent SNP. This shows why it's important to check for phylogenetic inconsistencies, especially in ancient DNA where there are more no calls and low read depth, either by assay or DNA damage post mortem (or both).

mwauthy
11-20-2020, 05:43 PM
Ftdna Haplotree now has I-L758 + 31 SNPs > I-M170 + 178 SNPs > I-Z2699 + 38 SNPs > I-M253 + 268 SNPs. There doesn’t appear to be anyone in the Ftdna database as I-L758* or I-Z2699* so I’m assuming these Haplotree changes are based on academic samples?

My question is which samples were used to make these Haplotree changes and what kind of overall Y chromosome coverage did they have?

deadly77
11-20-2020, 06:55 PM
Ftdna Haplotree now has I-L758 + 31 SNPs > I-M170 + 178 SNPs > I-Z2699 + 38 SNPs > I-M253 + 268 SNPs. There doesn’t appear to be anyone in the Ftdna database as I-L758* or I-Z2699* so I’m assuming these Haplotree changes are based on academic samples?

My question is which samples were used to make these Haplotree changes and what kind of overall Y chromosome coverage did they have?

Yeah, this is splitting up I, so "pre-I". This probably comes from three pre-I samples (two monozygotic twins, samples I2483 and I2484, and another infant KremsWA3) that Pribislav mentioned in the Ancient DNA Discussion thread here https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?8066-Genetic-Genealogy-amp-Ancient-DNA-in-the-News-(DISCUSSION-ONLY)&p=719076&viewfull=1#post719076

mwauthy
11-20-2020, 09:29 PM
Yeah, this is splitting up I, so "pre-I". This probably comes from three pre-I samples (two monozygotic twins, samples I2483 and I2484, and another infant KremsWA3) that Pribislav mentioned in the Ancient DNA Discussion thread here https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?8066-Genetic-Genealogy-amp-Ancient-DNA-in-the-News-(DISCUSSION-ONLY)&p=719076&viewfull=1#post719076


Thanks. That explains I-L758 + 31 SNPs being “pre-I.”

I wonder which sample was “pre-I1” with I-Z2699 + 38 SNPs?

deadly77
11-20-2020, 11:10 PM
Thanks. That explains I-L758 + 31 SNPs being “pre-I.”

I wonder which sample was “pre-I1” with I-Z2699 + 38 SNPs?

That would be SNPs that the pre-I1 samples SF11 (10 SNPs) , BAL051 (13 SNPs) and Car1 (19 SNPs) are positive for, which would be 42 although there are some duplicates where the same SNP is found in more than one sample (eg. Z2699 is 2C for BAL051 and 1C for Car1) and some of FTDNA's I1 SNPs may not be on the YFull tree, which I used as reference when I went through the BAM files.

Not sure if this is really appropriate - it implies that the relationship between these pre-I1 samples is closer than they are in that they form a clade by themselves, while in reality they might be disparate lines with a common ancestor much further back. The large number of no calls make it more difficult to confidently call that. BAL051 is ancestral for FGC2433 while SF11 is derived for FGC2433 while that SNP is included in the phylogenetic block. YSC0000301 is listed in the phylogenetic block but only observed in SF11 sample and not in Car1 or BAL051.

deadly77
11-21-2020, 07:11 AM
The way the haplotree is set up, it can also give the impression that the pre-I1 samples on the I-Z2699 branch are ancestors of the main I1 branch, which I think is misleading as they are more likely to be a side branch - ie, not ancestors of the later I1 but sharing a common ancestor further back. Richard Miller made this graphic a while ago which demonstrates the idea of branches (lines) that died off betterthan text. 41292

Although with the coverage of these three samples, many of the I1 SNPs are no call - these no calls account for more than 80% of the I1 SNPs in each of these samples, which would give us a clearer picture of when these samples branched away from the main I1 branch. What would be really interesting would be if FTDNA could find derived SNPs in these samples that no modern I1 was positive for. That would establish divergence, but with the low coverage many of such SNPs would be one-read SNPs and assigning these with any confidence versus one read false positives would be a bit risky.

Strider99
11-21-2020, 08:02 PM
Thanks for the clarifications, guys. Much appreciated! God bless.

Strider99
12-06-2020, 07:16 PM
Hi, I was wondering something about the sample oll009 from Malmström 2019. He was dated to 1930-1750 BC. Is he Battle Axe or just Late Neolithic, culturally speaking? I noticed that in Deadly77's I1 list on Google Drive (great and informative compilation btw), he's marked as "LNBA".

His tomb that had previously been a Funnelbeaker passage tomb was destroyed converted to a stone cist during the LN. Inside it they found both Funnelbeaker artefacts, Battle Axe artefacts and more typical Late Neolithic artefacts like a bronze disc and a flint dagger.

Which material culture would you say oll009 is the most associated with? His Y-DNA is I1 but the guys buried next to him were R1a, right? Additionally, he's not like Funnelbeakers autosomally, but instead about 50% Yamnaya. Is he just broadly Late Neolithic Scandinavian, or was he a Battle Axe man?

deadly77
12-06-2020, 09:46 PM
Hi, I was wondering something about the sample oll009 from Malmström 2019. He was dated to 1930-1750 BC. Is he Battle Axe or just Late Neolithic, culturally speaking? I noticed that in Deadly77's I1 list on Google Drive (great and informative compilation btw), he's marked as "LNBA".

His tomb that had previously been a Funnelbeaker passage tomb was destroyed converted to a stone cist during the LN. Inside it they found both Funnelbeaker artefacts, Battle Axe artefacts and more typical Late Neolithic artefacts like a bronze disc and a flint dagger.

Which material culture would you say oll009 is the most associated with? His Y-DNA is I1 but the guys buried next to him were R1a, right? Additionally, he's not like Funnelbeakers autosomally, but instead about 50% Yamnaya. Is he just broadly Late Neolithic Scandinavian, or was he a Battle Axe man?

Glad you like the I1 map. I had a look at the map and I don't see "LNBA" listed, so not sure why you say he's marked as "LNBA" - perhaps that's from another site?

oll009 was Scandinavian Late Neolithic, based on the radiocarbon dating. From the items found at the site at Ölljsö, it looks like this burial site was used and reused by successive cultures over several time periods from Funnelbeaker to Battle Axe to late Neolithic, hence the variety of grave goods. The supplementary material says that at least 14 different individuals were buried at this site, although only three appear to have been DNA sequenced. The paper had oll009 and oll010 as Scandanavian Late Neolithic and oll007 (dated quite a bit earlier - between a few hundred and a thousand years older) to Battle Axe. So none of these three samples were funnelbeaker culture, although the site itself is characterized as such. Perhaps we would see more from funnelbeaker, etc. from this site if more of those had been sequenced

No, the "guys" buried next to oll009 were not R1a - at least among those that were sequenced. oll007 and oll010 were female, and thus don't have a Y-DNA haplogroup. The two R1a samples listed in the paper were from different sites - ber1 was from Bergsgraven, Östergötland, Sweden and poz81 was from Obłaczkowo, Wielkopolska, Poland. Both of these samples are between a few hundred to a thousand years older than oll009.

Strider99
12-07-2020, 01:05 PM
Glad you like the I1 map. I had a look at the map and I don't see "LNBA" listed, so not sure why you say he's marked as "LNBA" - perhaps that's from another site?

oll009 was Scandinavian Late Neolithic, based on the radiocarbon dating. From the items found at the site at Ölljsö, it looks like this burial site was used and reused by successive cultures over several time periods from Funnelbeaker to Battle Axe to late Neolithic, hence the variety of grave goods. The supplementary material says that at least 14 different individuals were buried at this site, although only three appear to have been DNA sequenced. The paper had oll009 and oll010 as Scandanavian Late Neolithic and oll007 (dated quite a bit earlier - between a few hundred and a thousand years older) to Battle Axe. So none of these three samples were funnelbeaker culture, although the site itself is characterized as such. Perhaps we would see more from funnelbeaker, etc. from this site if more of those had been sequenced

No, the "guys" buried next to oll009 were not R1a - at least among those that were sequenced. oll007 and oll010 were female, and thus don't have a Y-DNA haplogroup. The two R1a samples listed in the paper were from different sites - ber1 was from Bergsgraven, Östergötland, Sweden and poz81 was from Obłaczkowo, Wielkopolska, Poland. Both of these samples are between a few hundred to a thousand years older than oll009.


Oh, my bad. I actually didn't mean the map, but this document in Google Drive: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VhXRd1RtHGXdeyvhUT3WdkrNcr4o2Eun/view
I saved it as a bookmark a while ago but I don't remember who made it (I assumed it was you though). In that document he's marked as LNBA.

Good to know that he's Late Neolithic at least. For some reason I thought oll007 and oll010 were the R1a samples. It would be interesting to see more Funnelbeaker samples in the future, but things are looking pretty dry on that front right now.

Anyway, thanks for another good explanation B)

deadly77
12-07-2020, 06:31 PM
Oh, my bad. I actually didn't mean the map, but this document in Google Drive: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VhXRd1RtHGXdeyvhUT3WdkrNcr4o2Eun/view
I saved it as a bookmark a while ago but I don't remember who made it (I assumed it was you though). In that document he's marked as LNBA.

Good to know that he's Late Neolithic at least. For some reason I thought oll007 and oll010 were the R1a samples. It would be interesting to see more Funnelbeaker samples in the future, but things are looking pretty dry on that front right now.

Anyway, thanks for another good explanation B)

Nope, that's not me - Pribislav put that spreadsheet together in Google Drive (see post #601 on page 61) so appropriate credit should go to him and Pribislav does excellent work on ancient DNA samples on this forum.

My work is the Haplogroup I1 Ancient DNA Samples Map which can be found here https://bit.ly/2Z3CJk7 - the link is also in my signature but you might not be able to see my signature if you don't have enough posts. I tried doing a spreadsheet earlier on in a similar vein to the one Pribislav made but I wanted some different data covered and I couldn't seem to get it into a format that I was happy with. I experimented with Google My Maps and that seemed to be a better option for me in how I wanted to organize the data. But everyone views things differently and it's good to have a variety of options.

Strider99
12-09-2020, 05:15 PM
Nope, that's not me - Pribislav put that spreadsheet together in Google Drive (see post #601 on page 61) so appropriate credit should go to him and Pribislav does excellent work on ancient DNA samples on this forum.

My work is the Haplogroup I1 Ancient DNA Samples Map which can be found here https://bit.ly/2Z3CJk7 - the link is also in my signature but you might not be able to see my signature if you don't have enough posts. I tried doing a spreadsheet earlier on in a similar vein to the one Pribislav made but I wanted some different data covered and I couldn't seem to get it into a format that I was happy with. I experimented with Google My Maps and that seemed to be a better option for me in how I wanted to organize the data. But everyone views things differently and it's good to have a variety of options.

Okay, got it. I think both your map and Pribislav's spreadsheet are really helpful when it comes to gaining some kind of understanding about the phantom that is ancient I1.

I wonder if any Y-DNA from this paper will be published in the future, it feels like some of those regions and time periods could possibly be quite relevant for the search of more ancient I1: https://d-nb.info/1209245647/34

deadly77
12-09-2020, 06:25 PM
Okay, got it. I think both your map and Pribislav's spreadsheet are really helpful when it comes to gaining some kind of understanding about the phantom that is ancient I1.

I wonder if any Y-DNA from this paper will be published in the future, it feels like some of those regions and time periods could possibly be quite relevant for the search of more ancient I1: https://d-nb.info/1209245647/34

My guess is that since there is no discussion of Y-DNA in that thesis, apart from a brief mention of "68 non-recombinant Y markers" in the abstract, then perhaps that's the subject of a different thesis. However, I think any details using this dataset will be scant. It appears that these samples used an enrichment/SNP capture to get the particular autosomal SNPs that they were interested in and captured the mitochondrial haplgroup - as mtDNA is non nuclear DNA and rather abundant then it's low hanging fruit to acquire. If there's only 68 SNPs from the Y chromosome acquired, there's probably not going to be any detailed subclade data and might only get high level haplogroups. Very much depends on what SNPs were covered in the assay. I think they only included Y chromosome SNPs in the enrichment assay because it gave them a method to assign if a particular sample is male or female (see page 16).

For what it's worth, the last page says "Raw data and scripts are available upon request" with the author's email address, so I guess there's no harm in asking. But based on the description of the DNA sequencing and the results presented, I'm not sure that there will be useful Y-DNA data from this study unless those samples are re-sequenced.

Dewsloth
12-09-2020, 08:17 PM
One of my favorites (and IIRC, he's in deadly77's list, but not yfull) is VK146 -- an Oxford burial I-M6155 Viking who has a lot of "south" autosomally -- so much so that there are folks on Eurogenes that think he's a "French mercenary" :lol:

But, if you look at the distribution of I-M6155, you see there's little chance of that, and much more a chance the mothers in contact with his Y-line were the source of the south.

Y-DNA Haplogroup I-M6155 modern MDKA distribution (doesn't look very French ;) )


Branch Participants
I-M6155 and Downstream (Excluding other Letters)
Distribution
Sweden 214 72.79%
Norway 43 14.63%
Finland 21 7.14%
Russian Federation 10 3.40%
Denmark 2 0.68%
Estonia 1 0.34%
Ukraine 1 0.34%
Poland 1 0.34%
United States 1 0.34%
Unknown Origin 82 **
Total 376 100.00%

Strider99
12-10-2020, 07:08 PM
My guess is that since there is no discussion of Y-DNA in that thesis, apart from a brief mention of "68 non-recombinant Y markers" in the abstract, then perhaps that's the subject of a different thesis. However, I think any details using this dataset will be scant. It appears that these samples used an enrichment/SNP capture to get the particular autosomal SNPs that they were interested in and captured the mitochondrial haplgroup - as mtDNA is non nuclear DNA and rather abundant then it's low hanging fruit to acquire. If there's only 68 SNPs from the Y chromosome acquired, there's probably not going to be any detailed subclade data and might only get high level haplogroups. Very much depends on what SNPs were covered in the assay. I think they only included Y chromosome SNPs in the enrichment assay because it gave them a method to assign if a particular sample is male or female (see page 16).

For what it's worth, the last page says "Raw data and scripts are available upon request" with the author's email address, so I guess there's no harm in asking. But based on the description of the DNA sequencing and the results presented, I'm not sure that there will be useful Y-DNA data from this study unless those samples are re-sequenced.

I'm going to send an email to Mr Blöcher and see if there is any useful Y-DNA data to be had from it. It can't hurt to ask, right? :)

deadly77
12-10-2020, 08:27 PM
I'm going to send an email to Mr Blöcher and see if there is any useful Y-DNA data to be had from it. It can't hurt to ask, right? :)

Not at all. As they say in my part of the world "shy bairns get nowt"

mwauthy
12-18-2020, 05:18 PM
Hi deadly. Just to let you know that YFull finally moved VK446 from I-FGC24357 to I-BY94803 similar to Ftdna in case you wanted to update it on the notes you created for VK446 on the link in your signature? Pretty cool that I share a direct common patrilineal ancestor with VK446 one subclade step up with I-FGC75802 + I-BY19383.

deadly77
12-19-2020, 07:15 AM
Hi deadly. Just to let you know that YFull finally moved VK446 from I-FGC24357 to I-BY94803 similar to Ftdna in case you wanted to update it on the notes you created for VK446 on the link in your signature? Pretty cool that I share a direct common patrilineal ancestor with VK446 one subclade step up with I-FGC75802 + I-BY19383.

Thanks - I have updated it on the map. I am (slowly) going through and updating the map with the newer data from the YFull and FTDNA analysis of these samples, but I'm quite far off being up to date. Work in progress when I can get to it...

Lars Northman
12-29-2020, 05:10 PM
Bonjour
nouveau sur le forum, j'ai une question a vous soumettre
YFull me donne I1 et plus précisément I-CST8647
je ne trouve pas de renseignement sur cet haplogroupe auriez vous des pistes ou la provenance.
Merci et content de vous rejoindre

Helgenes50
12-29-2020, 05:37 PM
Bonjour
nouveau sur le forum, j'ai une question a vous soumettre
YFull me donne I1 et plus précisément I-CST8647
je ne trouve pas de renseignement sur cet haplogroupe auriez vous des pistes ou la provenance.
Merci et content de vous rejoindre

Bienvenue sur le forum Lars

deadly77
12-29-2020, 05:38 PM
Bonjour
nouveau sur le forum, j'ai une question a vous soumettre
YFull me donne I1 et plus précisément I-CST8647
je ne trouve pas de renseignement sur cet haplogroupe auriez vous des pistes ou la provenance.
Merci et content de vous rejoindre

Welcome to the Anthorgenica Forums - this is a large thread and things that are not related to ancient I1 samples tend to get buried. I think it would be better if you posted your query as a new thread and then people are more likely to see it. Go here https://anthrogenica.com/forumdisplay.php?66-I1-M253, click on the "+ Post New Thread" and create a new post. Best to include all the information that you have including what tests you have done that designated you as I-CTS8647.

passenger
12-29-2020, 05:44 PM
Bonjour
nouveau sur le forum, j'ai une question a vous soumettre
YFull me donne I1 et plus précisément I-CST8647
je ne trouve pas de renseignement sur cet haplogroupe auriez vous des pistes ou la provenance.
Merci et content de vous rejoindre


Welcome to the Anthorgenica Forums - this is a large thread and things that are not related to ancient I1 samples tend to get buried. I think it would be better if you posted your query as a new thread and then people are more likely to see it. Go here https://anthrogenica.com/forumdisplay.php?66-I1-M253, click on the "+ Post New Thread" and create a new post. Best to include all the information that you have including what tests you have done that designated you as I-CTS8647.

Agreed, and welcome to the forum! Also, please be aware that the common language on Anthrogenica oustide of the International Area is English, and members are expected to post in that language. If you prefer to post in French, we have a very active French language section where you can post: https://anthrogenica.com/forumdisplay.php?162-French.

deadly77
12-30-2020, 08:15 AM
YFull has added the R1286 sample from the 2019 Ancient Rome paper to the YTree at branch I-FGC70902 a little further downstream from I-Y4115. https://www.yfull.com/tree/I-FGC70902/

Strider99
01-24-2021, 08:52 PM
Has anybody heard anything more about the study that is being worked on that's supposedly dealing with the Nordic Bronze Age/Iron Age-transition in Northern Europe? A Copenhagen lab is working on that if I remember correctly. I feel like that could be a potential I1 gold mine. Although more LN or Nordic Bronze Age genomes would be even better. I'm really curious as to what we would find if we looked at Nordic Bronze Age samples from the Northern parts of Germany.

Quick update on potential Y-DNA from Blöcher 2020 that was mentioned one page back: I was in brief contact with Jens Blöcher over email. I asked if there was any way he could provide information regarding the haplogroups of the hunter-gatherers and farmers in the paper. He replied asking if a simple list of haplotypes would be okay. Naturally that was fine with me, I haven't heard anything more since that though. Maybe there wasn't much there or he just didn't feel like sending it :\

Bygdedweller
01-24-2021, 11:44 PM
Has anybody heard anything more about the study that is being worked on that's supposedly dealing with the Nordic Bronze Age/Iron Age-transition in Northern Europe? A Copenhagen lab is working on that if I remember correctly. I feel like that could be a potential I1 gold mine. Although more LN or Nordic Bronze Age genomes would be even better. I'm really curious as to what we would find if we looked at Nordic Bronze Age samples from the Northern parts of Germany.

According to what I heard it is an extension of the Viking-project, tentatively titled "the roots of the Vikings" or something like that. They are apparently testing the remains of those who were given elite burials, searching for patterns of kinship (as in, are the Nordic elites related to each other?) and continuity. Kristian Kristiansen is involved, and he has hypothesized that the elites active in the VA can be traced to the Nordic Bronze Age, very roughly speaking, so I'm guessing this will be a theme of the project. From what I know there is indeed evidence that, geographically speaking, the same places that became petty kingdoms during the VA had been so also during the Nordic Bronze age.

I have a tad bit more information from a book (https://www.ark.no/boker/Asle-Toje-Gullbrikkespillet-9788282655415) I read by a Norwegian political scientist, where one of the researchers, Sturla (who is sadly now out), was interviewed about this project in one of the chapters which dealt with the Norwegian Iron Age. I don't have the book with me at the moment, but I can go back and check later this week when I'm at home. But I remember he mentioned they were indeed interested in the Y-DNA. This book was written for readers without a specific interest in population genetics and had only a small section about this, so it was just stated that they were "checking if the elites had haplogroups R1a, R1b or I1" or so. I don't know how accurate that transcript is.

During the Iron Age, there is a period of cultural discontinuity beginning around the 5th century, which has been the realm of great speculation (see Lotte Hedeager's theories, who I also believe is involved) since that's when we first see the worship of Odin becoming widespread in Scandinavia, and also the animal art-style of the Vendel period etc. I got the impression they also aim to find out what happened here and whether this was preceded by migration, either from within or outside Scandinavia, and again whether this had something to do with a shifting of the elites.

Riverman
01-25-2021, 04:24 PM
I'm quite excited about this and can't wait for the data to come in. Just as a general comment on what you wrote:


...the same places that became petty kingdoms during the VA had been so also during the Nordic Bronze age.

I don't think that's conclusive evidence for anything, because elites, even whole populations could be replaced, but the same places being used and re-used, even burial and ritual sites. As an extreme example for this pattern, we just have to look at the Bell Beaker conquest of Britain and their usage of Megalithic structures and sites. But the same can be observed through the ages, in many places, especially those which were of strategical and economical importance. And I would not expect a complete replacement in Scandinavia after the Bronze Age at all, rather a significant influx, especially of Iron Age Germanic elites at different times, coming from the relative South, especially via Denmark. The only way to prove the degreee of continuity or discontuity in Germanic Scandinavia is indeed to test the elite burials.

Bygdedweller
01-25-2021, 06:06 PM
I'm quite excited about this and can't wait for the data to come in. Just as a general comment on what you wrote:

I don't think that's conclusive evidence for anything, because elites, even whole populations could be replaced, but the same places being used and re-used, even burial and ritual sites. As an extreme example for this pattern, we just have to look at the Bell Beaker conquest of Britain and their usage of Megalithic structures and sites. But the same can be observed through the ages, in many places, especially those which were of strategical and economical importance. And I would not expect a complete replacement in Scandinavia after the Bronze Age at all, rather a significant influx, especially of Iron Age Germanic elites at different times, coming from the relative South, especially via Denmark. The only way to prove the degreee of continuity or discontuity in Germanic Scandinavia is indeed to test the elite burials.
I'm not necessarily espousing that argument either, but keep in mind it is my very dumbed down version of what Kristiansen stated on a Swedish TV-special (https://www.svtplay.se/video/21181999/de-forsta-svenskarna/de-forsta-svenskarna-sasong-1-avsnitt-2) (the later half deals with the Bronze Age) that aired some years ago. I'm probably not paying him due justice ;) He drew some interesting analogies between the nature of the maritime Bronze Age-society and that of the Viking age. I just found this interesting paper (https://www.rockartscandinavia.com/images/news/lingetal2018.pdf), which looks like it ventures into more detail about it. In any case, I agree that this argument doesn't really prove anything, since there's no reason to suspect that new elites wouldn't reuse old settlement-areas, fortifications, structures etc the way you mentioned. The observed changes in material culture and DNA are certainly more important to find out what happened. The Iron Age-genomes we have already show some differentation and it does indeed seem likely that there was an influx brought in from Denmark. But I'm also curious to what degree the Uppsala-elites played a role in this and perhaps even was a source of influx, since it was by all standards an area that became really powerful during the later Iron Age, and its significance as a religious site is well-attested.

Strider99
01-25-2021, 07:50 PM
According to what I heard it is an extension of the Viking-project, tentatively titled "the roots of the Vikings" or something like that. They are apparently testing the remains of those who were given elite burials, searching for patterns of kinship (as in, are the Nordic elites related to each other?) and continuity. Kristian Kristiansen is involved, and he has hypothesized that the elites active in the VA can be traced to the Nordic Bronze Age, very roughly speaking, so I'm guessing this will be a theme of the project. From what I know there is indeed evidence that, geographically speaking, the same places that became petty kingdoms during the VA had been so also during the Nordic Bronze age.

I have a tad bit more information from a book (https://www.ark.no/boker/Asle-Toje-Gullbrikkespillet-9788282655415) I read by a Norwegian political scientist, where one of the researchers, Sturla (who is sadly now out), was interviewed about this project in one of the chapters which dealt with the Norwegian Iron Age. I don't have the book with me at the moment, but I can go back and check later this week when I'm at home. But I remember he mentioned they were indeed interested in the Y-DNA. This book was written for readers without a specific interest in population genetics and had only a small section about this, so it was just stated that they were "checking if the elites had haplogroups R1a, R1b or I1" or so. I don't know how accurate that transcript is.

During the Iron Age, there is a period of cultural discontinuity beginning around the 5th century, which has been the realm of great speculation (see Lotte Hedeager's theories, who I also believe is involved) since that's when we first see the worship of Odin becoming widespread in Scandinavia, and also the animal art-style of the Vendel period etc. I got the impression they also aim to find out what happened here and whether this was preceded by migration, either from within or outside Scandinavia, and again whether this had something to do with a shifting of the elites.

That sounds like a very interesting project. Do you know if Kristiansen believes that there is a strong, direct cultural continuity between the Nordic Bronze Age, the Nordic Iron Age and the Viking Age? I know that it could be argued that the clan-based societal structure and maritime culture stayed roughly on the same track, but I'm not educated enough about the rest of it.

I can only think that there must have been a lot of regional variety in terms of elite Y-DNA haplogroups during the Nordic Bronze Age. Surely there must have been some element of Battle Axe remnants in Norway and Western Sweden. Of course this post-BAC sphere was completely integrated into the mainstream Nordic Bronze Age culture, but there was still some geographical distance between them and the metallurgical hotspots located in Denmark and Scania. I believe this is visible in current Y-DNA as well, with Norway and some parts of Sweden still having a higher frequency of Battle Axe lineages as opposed to Denmark, where BAC Y-DNA did not persist. I just hope that they test elite burials from different regions of Scandinavia, because for obvious reasons the Y-DNA of elites closer to the metallurgical center of the Nordic Bronze Age might look different than that of those local elites on the outskirts of the cultural area who were incorporated into the culture. For the sake of sample variety and to avoid sample bias I just hope they don't make the same mistake as in the Viking paper, where samples from some parts of Scandinavia never really made it in.

It's really a shame about them excluding Sturla Ellingvåg from the project, since that guy seems to be very passionate about history and gaining a genomic understanding of it. I wonder if this project is still on: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/altavilla/dna-of-the-greatest-warriors-in-history/description
It certainly doesn't seem to have had any problem getting enough donations. It'd be very exciting to see.

I wonder if the Vendel stuff was just a natural progression of the old Bronze Age hierarchy crashing down, bog iron becoming readily available and enabling the crafting of weapons that even the lower classes could make themselves, and the old aristocracy losing their monopoly on violence and military power, resulting in a new (and more local perhaps) cultural expression. It would be interesting if they did DNA tests on the Valsgärde warrior burials. My own (admittedly limited) understanding is that the area near Valsgärde must already have been fairly powerful during the Bronze Age. After all, isn't that where the Håga mound is located? Such a massively wealthy mark of status surely indicates that the area wasn't a complete backwater during the Nordic Bronze Age, either. What would be cool would be if they managed to get some DNA from a Bronze Age mound near Vendel and then compared it to one of the Valsgärde warrior/elite burials.

Bygdedweller
02-06-2021, 06:33 PM
That sounds like a very interesting project. Do you know if Kristiansen believes that there is a strong, direct cultural continuity between the Nordic Bronze Age, the Nordic Iron Age and the Viking Age? I know that it could be argued that the clan-based societal structure and maritime culture stayed roughly on the same track, but I'm not educated enough about the rest of it.

I can only think that there must have been a lot of regional variety in terms of elite Y-DNA haplogroups during the Nordic Bronze Age. Surely there must have been some element of Battle Axe remnants in Norway and Western Sweden. Of course this post-BAC sphere was completely integrated into the mainstream Nordic Bronze Age culture, but there was still some geographical distance between them and the metallurgical hotspots located in Denmark and Scania. I believe this is visible in current Y-DNA as well, with Norway and some parts of Sweden still having a higher frequency of Battle Axe lineages as opposed to Denmark, where BAC Y-DNA did not persist. I just hope that they test elite burials from different regions of Scandinavia, because for obvious reasons the Y-DNA of elites closer to the metallurgical center of the Nordic Bronze Age might look different than that of those local elites on the outskirts of the cultural area who were incorporated into the culture. For the sake of sample variety and to avoid sample bias I just hope they don't make the same mistake as in the Viking paper, where samples from some parts of Scandinavia never really made it in.

It's really a shame about them excluding Sturla Ellingvåg from the project, since that guy seems to be very passionate about history and gaining a genomic understanding of it. I wonder if this project is still on: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/altavilla/dna-of-the-greatest-warriors-in-history/description
It certainly doesn't seem to have had any problem getting enough donations. It'd be very exciting to see.

I wonder if the Vendel stuff was just a natural progression of the old Bronze Age hierarchy crashing down, bog iron becoming readily available and enabling the crafting of weapons that even the lower classes could make themselves, and the old aristocracy losing their monopoly on violence and military power, resulting in a new (and more local perhaps) cultural expression. It would be interesting if they did DNA tests on the Valsgärde warrior burials. My own (admittedly limited) understanding is that the area near Valsgärde must already have been fairly powerful during the Bronze Age. After all, isn't that where the Håga mound is located? Such a massively wealthy mark of status surely indicates that the area wasn't a complete backwater during the Nordic Bronze Age, either. What would be cool would be if they managed to get some DNA from a Bronze Age mound near Vendel and then compared it to one of the Valsgärde warrior/elite burials.
Much like you said, I believe his main point is a structural resemblance. NBA had political entities and elites that were able to generate huge surplus by maritime raiding, slaving and trade, combined with commoners subsisting by agropastoralism, so it must have been stratified in a similar capacity to the VA. He does emphasize that there were fluctuations in the pattern, although I don’t think he contends much with the specifically disruptive elements during the later Iron Age, other than pointing out the overall trend of the IA; Scandinavia became self-sustaining with regards to the production of iron leading to localization. That drastically reduced the emphasis on international seafaring and trade, resulting in a greater degree of egalitarianism, yet with more in-fighting and larger entities dissolving into splinter groups. Obviously, the migration era changed this localized pattern, with the outward-looking impulse re-appearing in an even greater magnitude. This doesn’t necessarily preclude a turnover in the form of new tribes or collective units from the outside gathering power though, as I see it, but I haven’t yet seen a fleshed out version of this theory.

As for sampling variety, I hope for this too. There’s a lot of hotly debated questions they can clear up with just a few chronologically spread out samples from Western Norway for instance. To this day, I don’t think any sample from this area has ever made it into a paper (except perhaps from the mesolithic?). I think the impact of Battle Axe remained fairly high especially in the inland areas of Sweden and Eastern/Mid-Norway. I expect that a great deal of BAC-lineages would have been assimilated into whatever new elites appeared from the South if the modern distribution is any indication. It will be highly interesting to see to what extent though. For now, most of the Battle Axe-samples we have are limited to a few select southern parts of Sweden, so there’s really a huge part of the story missing for BAC as well in terms of genetic structure. We don't even know for sure what uniparentals were present in the BAC-area. There's a of educated guesses, but I’m certain some surprises await here too.

DNA from Valsgärde or Vendel would be a dream come true and highly instructive for any future theories, absolutely. If they can prove a link to the elites in Norway, on the continent and in the British isles, that would be about as interesting as it could get. I know that the some of those buried in Valsgärde are even speculated to be royals, and there's an intriguing parallell in the findings from Åker (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vang,_Hedmark#Early_history) in Eastern Norway, as well as Sutton Hoo. Here's some of the quotes (loosely translated) from that book I mentioned by the way: (mods or anyone affiliated with the book/project, let me know if I should remove it)

(Context is a discussion on hillforts that were constructed during the migration era)
The hillforts may be a result of local conflicts, but they can also be a result of intruders from the outside, as suggested by the historian Andreas Holmsen. New DNA-research may provide us with proof[…] Ellingvåg points out that it doesn’t necessarily need to be a large amount of people. Small groups could have left a large genetic footprint, if they were more able to reproduce.
[…]
Ellingvåg is part of a project to collect «warrior-DNA». The goal is to see if those buried together with weapons have the haplogroups R1a and R1b. The material is comprehensive. Bone material from a significant amount of grave mounds have been preserved in the collections of Scandinavian museums. As part of DNA pre-project in Copenhagen he has done «shotgun-sampling», but points out that the findings so far leave us with well-founded questions, yet no unambiguous answers. Ellingvåg says that findings indicate our pre-historic ancestors travelled more than previously assumed. Knuckles show examples of humans being buried hundreds of kilometers from wherever they grew up. Perhaps it was not that unusual to set out on extended periods of travel in the past?
[…]
Dagfinn Skre, who has worked on hillforts in Romerike (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romerike), thinks they lost relevance as a result of the centralization of power, in which the pattern of chieftains ruling over each small hill is being replaced by regional petty kings. The Danish archaeologist Lotte Hedeager advocates a similar point of view, pointing out that that organized military units under the rule of a war lord, such as the hird (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hird), came into being during this time.
[…]
Ellingvåg wants to test Hedeager’s hypothesis that there should have been migration into Scandinavia at this point. At the DNA-lab in Copenhagen he has received strong indications that this is indeed correct, although much work remains. His hypothesis is that Norway too is affected by the migration era in the form of families, maybe even whole tribes, returning to Norway after having lived for generations on the continent, on travels that may have spanned over several generations. Another possibility is that these great changes in culture, religion and technology that co-incide with the migration era, are a result of new peoples from the outside dethroning the old elites while taking over the best farming lands.

Strider99
02-08-2021, 11:14 AM
Much like you said, I believe his main point is a structural resemblance. NBA had political entities and elites that were able to generate huge surplus by maritime raiding, slaving and trade, combined with commoners subsisting by agropastoralism, so it must have been stratified in a similar capacity to the VA. He does emphasize that there were fluctuations in the pattern, although I don’t think he contends much with the specifically disruptive elements during the later Iron Age, other than pointing out the overall trend of the IA; Scandinavia became self-sustaining with regards to the production of iron leading to localization. That drastically reduced the emphasis on international seafaring and trade, resulting in a greater degree of egalitarianism, yet with more in-fighting and larger entities dissolving into splinter groups. Obviously, the migration era changed this localized pattern, with the outward-looking impulse re-appearing in an even greater magnitude. This doesn’t necessarily preclude a turnover in the form of new tribes or collective units from the outside gathering power though, as I see it, but I haven’t yet seen a fleshed out version of this theory.

As for sampling variety, I hope for this too. There’s a lot of hotly debated questions they can clear up with just a few chronologically spread out samples from Western Norway for instance. To this day, I don’t think any sample from this area has ever made it into a paper (except perhaps from the mesolithic?). I think the impact of Battle Axe remained fairly high especially in the inland areas of Sweden and Eastern/Mid-Norway. I expect that a great deal of BAC-lineages would have been assimilated into whatever new elites appeared from the South if the modern distribution is any indication. It will be highly interesting to see to what extent though. For now, most of the Battle Axe-samples we have are limited to a few select southern parts of Sweden, so there’s really a huge part of the story missing for BAC as well in terms of genetic structure. We don't even know for sure what uniparentals were present in the BAC-area. There's a of educated guesses, but I’m certain some surprises await here too.

DNA from Valsgärde or Vendel would be a dream come true and highly instructive for any future theories, absolutely. If they can prove a link to the elites in Norway, on the continent and in the British isles, that would be about as interesting as it could get. I know that the some of those buried in Valsgärde are even speculated to be royals, and there's an intriguing parallell in the findings from Åker (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vang,_Hedmark#Early_history) in Eastern Norway, as well as Sutton Hoo. Here's some of the quotes (loosely translated) from that book I mentioned by the way: (mods or anyone affiliated with the book/project, let me know if I should remove it)

(Context is a discussion on hillforts that were constructed during the migration era)
The hillforts may be a result of local conflicts, but they can also be a result of intruders from the outside, as suggested by the historian Andreas Holmsen. New DNA-research may provide us with proof[…] Ellingvåg points out that it doesn’t necessarily need to be a large amount of people. Small groups could have left a large genetic footprint, if they were more able to reproduce.
[…]
Ellingvåg is part of a project to collect «warrior-DNA». The goal is to see if those buried together with weapons have the haplogroups R1a and R1b. The material is comprehensive. Bone material from a significant amount of grave mounds have been preserved in the collections of Scandinavian museums. As part of DNA pre-project in Copenhagen he has done «shotgun-sampling», but points out that the findings so far leave us with well-founded questions, yet no unambiguous answers. Ellingvåg says that findings indicate our pre-historic ancestors travelled more than previously assumed. Knuckles show examples of humans being buried hundreds of kilometers from wherever they grew up. Perhaps it was not that unusual to set out on extended periods of travel in the past?
[…]
Dagfinn Skre, who has worked on hillforts in Romerike (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romerike), thinks they lost relevance as a result of the centralization of power, in which the pattern of chieftains ruling over each small hill is being replaced by regional petty kings. The Danish archaeologist Lotte Hedeager advocates a similar point of view, pointing out that that organized military units under the rule of a war lord, such as the hird (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hird), came into being during this time.
[…]
Ellingvåg wants to test Hedeager’s hypothesis that there should have been migration into Scandinavia at this point. At the DNA-lab in Copenhagen he has received strong indications that this is indeed correct, although much work remains. His hypothesis is that Norway too is affected by the migration era in the form of families, maybe even whole tribes, returning to Norway after having lived for generations on the continent, on travels that may have spanned over several generations. Another possibility is that these great changes in culture, religion and technology that co-incide with the migration era, are a result of new peoples from the outside dethroning the old elites while taking over the best farming lands.


Definitely. About the Mesolithic sample from Western Norway, do you know the sample name? I remember that there is a hunter-gatherer sample from Steigens but I'm sure there are others too. I also believe that BAC lineages made it into Nordic Bronze Age elites. I personally think that they may have been more "locally" contained than I1 and R1b-U106 which we know went through rather explosive frequency growth in Scandinavia during the Nordic Bronze Age. Maybe if the Battle Axe remnants mostly stuck to their old inland parts of Norway and Sweden that could explain why R1a-Z284 seems less common than R1b-U106 and I1 in Migration Era samples found on the continent. Then again, judging by Wielbark samples it seems that some Iron Age tribes likely had extremely high frequencies of I1, with some R1b-U106 definitely thrown in there as well. Alternatively, that old Battle Axe sphere was just wealthy and powerful enough that they didn't have to seek fortune elsewhere and migrate. As you say, BAC samples from somewhere else than just Scania will clear this up, hopefully. I guess we should also keep in mind that R1b-U106 may have been much more common than we think in inland Norway and Sweden at the time. After all, the oldest U106 find is still from Scania, unless a more recent one has been found, I haven't really kept up. In any case I do think that there is a good possibility that R1b-U106 has a lot more to do with Corded Ware than with Bell Beakers.

The presumed I1-rich and R1b-U106-rich LN groups in Scania are very interesting, though. I read an interesting piece on their physical anthropology recently: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329611949_Diet_Health_and_Agriculture_The_Late_Neo lithic-Early_Bronze_Age_Example_of_Abbekas
This is from Abbekås where the sample RISE179 is from, and from Dragby. These people were, at least in terms of physicality, quite impressive for their time:
"Gejvall (1963) analysed a Late Neolithic gallery grave from Dragby, central Sweden. The number of individuals is relatively small (8 males and 13 females), but the reported mean stature is very high, 181.4 cm for males and 169.0 for females."

Regarding a possible link between the elites in Norway and Valsgärde: This could be bordering on the esoteric, but what comes to my mind is the Yngling dynasty. Snorri said that Olaf Tree Feller founded the Norwegian branch of the Yngling dynasty. Does that add up chronologically with Valsgärde at all? Anyway, the connection between Åker, Sutton Hoo and also Valsgärde is very interesting. Archaeologist Rupert Bruce-Mitford believed that the Wulfing clan mentioned in Beowulf became the East Anglian Wuffing dynasty. There is a lot of striking similarity between the Valsgärde helmets and the Sutton Hoo helmet, but of course this could also just be a coincidence since all Germanic material culture was quite similar at the time. Something else that would be interesting would be some high-status Iron Age burial DNA from East Anglia. Maybe this project will yield something like that: https://www.crick.ac.uk/news/2019-10-25_uncovering-5000-years-of-genetic-evolution-from-the-stone-age-to-the-21st-century
I think that project will show a lot of Iron Age I1, hopefully it'll provide many high quality samples.

Thanks for the translation by the way! I really hope we'll get to see more of Sturla's projects in the future. B)

deadly77
02-08-2021, 02:29 PM
The RISE samples from the Allentoft 2015 paper don't have very good coverage. I went through RISE179's BAM file a while ago and he was no call for >300 of the SNPs that define modern I1. He has just two derived reads for the SNPs on the I1 level - CTS3506/Z2765 (1G), CTS313/Z2681 (1C) and both of those are one read - we've seen a lot of such SNPs being shown to be false positives in other ancient DNA samples when looking for phylogenetic consistency. Unfortunately, the lack of data given that he's missing reads on >99% of the SNPs on the I1 level means it's difficult to assign him with any confidence. He could be I1, but he could also be pre-I1 - by that I mean he comes some way down the evolutionary path with I1, but branches off before the TMRCA of modern I1 - as for SF11, BAL051, Car1 (and probably BAB5). His 14C dating isn't far off the TMRCA of modern I1. A really interesting sample, shame the data is so poor.

Strider99
02-08-2021, 02:33 PM
The RISE samples from the Allentoft 2015 paper don't have very good coverage. I went through RISE179's BAM file a while ago and he was no call for >300 of the SNPs that define modern I1. He has just two derived reads for the SNPs on the I1 level - CTS3506/Z2765 (1G), CTS313/Z2681 (1C) and both of those are one read - we've seen a lot of such SNPs being shown to be false positives in other ancient DNA samples when looking for phylogenetic consistency. Unfortunately, the lack of data given that he's missing reads on >99% of the SNPs on the I1 level means it's difficult to assign him with any confidence. He could be I1, but he could also be pre-I1 - by that I mean he comes some way down the evolutionary path with I1, but branches off before the TMRCA of modern I1 - as for SF11, BAL051, Car1 (and probably BAB5). His 14C dating isn't far off the TMRCA of modern I1. A really interesting sample, shame the data is so poor.

It's a shame that the sample is so low coverage. Hopefully we'll get some more high quality late Neolithic samples from that area in the near future.

Kaltmeister
02-08-2021, 06:20 PM
Definitely. About the Mesolithic sample from Western Norway, do you know the sample name? I remember that there is a hunter-gatherer sample from Steigen but I'm sure there are others too.

You find information on Mesolithic samples from Scandinavia here. Hummervikholmen(2) is the oldest one (about 9.400y), an underwater find, I2-M438/U5a1 with 2/3 EHG.

43153
43154

https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.2003703&fbclid=IwAR2BwwV_bY0yePmQzsFuAd6lJ_1eu8Hmb5BefAZ0j tzqDAuUMdH9dXmkBBI

Kamo
02-17-2021, 12:55 AM
Wow a lot of fantastic info has been added to this thread since I last checked in. Since I have had -0- luck in pinpointing the ancestral origins of my Ydna I had begun paying closer attention to the studies of ancient samples if for no other reason than possibly finding at least a snippet of info that might be used to advise my own search. FYI, I'm the oddball among my Ydna matches without a surname match and also along with that of course I don't match anyone at all within my surname family project(Molloy) My 67 level results were I1-M253/L813/FGC9462. I have seen a few I1-M253/L813 matches from 100s of years ago wholly unrelated to me in terms of family but don't know where that falls in terms of ancient samples or locations or if that can even be determined. I had at one time thought hmm, maybe I have found the link when I read the Irish Wars Against the Foreigners and in that book it was stated that 2 Irish clans openly allied with the Danes and those 2 families were the O'Donovan's and the O'Molloys. That book has been discredited however apparently and even if true, still doesn't prove anything on a scientific level. In any case, I definitely enjoy the info and knowledge I've gained from this website and the links to studies that have been posted.

Calamus
02-17-2021, 01:31 PM
Wow a lot of fantastic info has been added to this thread since I last checked in. Since I have had -0- luck in pinpointing the ancestral origins of my Ydna I had begun paying closer attention to the studies of ancient samples if for no other reason than possibly finding at least a snippet of info that might be used to advise my own search. FYI, I'm the oddball among my Ydna matches without a surname match and also along with that of course I don't match anyone at all within my surname family project(Molloy) My 67 level results were I1-M253/L813/FGC9462. I have seen a few I1-M253/L813 matches from 100s of years ago wholly unrelated to me in terms of family but don't know where that falls in terms of ancient samples or locations or if that can even be determined. I had at one time thought hmm, maybe I have found the link when I read the Irish Wars Against the Foreigners and in that book it was stated that 2 Irish clans openly allied with the Danes and those 2 families were the O'Donovan's and the O'Molloys. That book has been discredited however apparently and even if true, still doesn't prove anything on a scientific level. In any case, I definitely enjoy the info and knowledge I've gained from this website and the links to studies that have been posted.

Hello,
I am also in the I1-FGC9462 Haplogroup (I am I1-FGC9462+, I1-FGC9496+). How deep have you tested? Have you taken the Big-Y test?

There are currently 20 Big-Y results that are positive for FGC9462 (12 Norwegian orgin, 4 Swedish orgin, 1 Irish orgin and 3 unknown orgin).
Based on the current results it looks like I1-FGC9462+ originated in the border area between Hedmark, Norway and Värmland, Sweden about 250AD.

If I had your Y-DNA results, I could probably narrow it down a little more.

deadly77
02-17-2021, 10:03 PM
Hello,
I am also in the I1-FGC9462 Haplogroup (I am I1-FGC9462+, I1-FGC9496+). How deep have you tested? Have you taken the Big-Y test?

There are currently 20 Big-Y results that are positive for FGC9462 (12 Norwegian orgin, 4 Swedish orgin, 1 Irish orgin and 3 unknown orgin).
Based on the current results it looks like I1-FGC9462+ originated in the border area between Hedmark, Norway and Värmland, Sweden about 250AD.

If I had your Y-DNA results, I could probably narrow it down a little more.

Happy for you guys to discuss your I-L813 subclades, but if it's going to move away from this thread's main topic of ancient DNA samples, could I please ask you to move the discussion into one of the I-L813 threads? There's a couple here https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?21402-Meaning-and-Ancestry-Info-needed-of-Subclade-L-813 and https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?7587-L813

Regarding Ancient I-L813, there were definitely a few in last year's "Population Genomics of the Viking World" paper and one (HSJ-A1) in the 2018 Ancient Icelanders paper. Five of these were good enough quality to be included on the YFull tree https://yfull.com/tree/i-l813/

Kamo
02-18-2021, 12:49 AM
Happy for you guys to discuss your I-L813 subclades, but if it's going to move away from this thread's main topic of ancient DNA samples, could I please ask you to move the discussion into one of the I-L813 threads? There's a couple here https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?21402-Meaning-and-Ancestry-Info-needed-of-Subclade-L-813 and https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?7587-L813

Regarding Ancient I-L813, there were definitely a few in last year's "Population Genomics of the Viking World" paper and one (HSJ-A1) in the 2018 Ancient Icelanders paper. Five of these were good enough quality to be included on the YFull tree https://yfull.com/tree/i-l813/

Yes I understand. Did not want to go too far afield from the point of this thread. Thanks for the L813 link.

deadly77
02-27-2021, 12:15 PM
It’s been a while since we had anything new to discuss here with regard to ancient I1 (and pre-I1), but hopefully this one is worth the wait.

This preprint came out on biorvix last year – link https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.08.19.256412v1 – and main premise of the paper is a minimally destructive method for extracting ancient DNA from dental cementum of tooth roots. This is interesting of itself, as hopefully it will allow the analysis of some samples that have not been conducted due to reluctance to allow irreversible damage to the ancient remains.

What is interesting (but isn’t touched on in the preprint itself) is the Y-DNA haplogroup of one of the individuals in this study, HUNG153 (individual 13 in the preprint). The researchers did two analyses on this individual, one using the minimally destructive extraction and another using whole tooth root completely powdered via milling. As a result, there are two BAM files with ID I20745 and I20767 for this individual and the BAM files are at ENA.

Having two BAM files isn’t a problem as the IGV allows the viewing of more than one BAM file simultaneously. Looking at HUNG153’s genome, there are reads for 56 SNPs on the I1 level – 45 derived, 10 ancestral and one ambiguous.

Derived calls: Z2699 (3C), L840 (1G), Z2880 (1A), FGC7747 (1G), Z2718 (1T), Z2756 (2T), Z2807 (1T), Z2729 (1T), Z2751 (1A), Z2700 (1C), CTS6140 (1C), Z2823 (1T), L496 (1T), Z2752 (1G), FGC2422 (1T), CTS11042 (1C), CTS1755/Z2750 (1T), Z2717 (1G), CTS9518 (1T), CTS8394 (2A), L81 (1C), Z2825 (1A), Z2805 (1A), Z2723 (1T), CTS9486 (1T), Z2705 (1T), Z2836 (1G), Z2812 (1T), FGC2438 (1G), Y1950 (CTGG to CGGA, deletion of T), Z2852 (2T), CTS4295 (1T), CTS2410 (1A), Z2724 (1A), L764 (2T), FGC2441 (1G), CTS9487 (1A), CTS641 (2T), Z2775 (1C), CTS11675 (1T), Y1940 (1T), CTS8708 (1A), Z2851 (2G), CTS22 (1A).

Ancestral calls: Z2726 (2A), Y964 (1G), Z2846 (1C), L347 (3C), CTS6006 (1G), CTS6022 (1G), Z6116 (1A or 3A), Z2828 (1A), Z2683 (6C), Y1873 (1C).

Ambiguous calls: L1439 (1A, 1C).

So HUNG153 is pre-I1, but he is closer to modern I1 than any of the other confirmed pre-I1 samples (more derived to ancestral ratio, although as with all ancient DNA samples, a large number of no calls). He is also the youngest confirmed pre-I1, with the preprint Table 1 listing him as dated to 2,600-2,400 BP. This also makes him a pre-I1 that’s around after the TMRCA of modern I1.

The preprint says the sample is from Kesznyéten-Szérűskert, Hungary. Kesznyéten is a village Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén County in northeastern Hungary. I couldn’t find much about the archaeological context of this individual – the preprint references Hellebrandt 1988, but all I’ve been able to find are things like this https://en.mandadb.hu/common/file-servlet/document/895687/default/doc_url/19_48_A_BAZ_Megyei_Mzeumi_Szervezet_munkaterve_898 4.pdf which appears to be an article written in Hungarian and then scanned. Don’t seem to be able to cut and paste into auto-translation tools. If anyone has any better luck (or can translate themselves), I’d be interested.

So this is the closest pre-I1 we have to the root of modern I1, both in terms of SNPs and age. An interesting one, I’m sure fellow ancient I1 enthusiasts will agree.

slavomir
02-28-2021, 02:54 PM
If anyone has any better luck (or can translate themselves), I’d be interested.


http://kesznyeten.hu/kesznyeten_konyve.pdf
an except from the introduction in google translate:



The first inhabitants of Kesznyéten
To our knowledge, human civilization is first
its representatives settled about three thousand years ago
in the municipality. Already in the 1930s
Several archeological finds during the construction of the service water canal
was found, but then the rescue was delayed, it was not claimed
down the construction site. Some scattered memories of the 70s
after the serious exploration took place in the mid-80s B.
Hellebrandt to Magdolna, the Herman Otto Museum
under the direction of his archaeologist. Late Bronze and
early cemeteries were also found in two places,
directly to the current inner area of ​​the village
neighborhood (Figures 1-2 and 3). From these
The finds of Kesznyéten-Szérűskert are in the most detail
processed. 75 graves were found here following the archaeologist's spade,
with interesting attachments (Figure 4). Conspicuous
special feature of the cemetery is the double, skeletal and
cremation burial mode, suggesting more
culture lived side by side here: the oldest is the so-called. gava
culture, but the influence of the Scythians and Gauls, presumably
mixing can also be observed with the Kesznyéteni finds
Based on. Some of the clay pots found
made by disk, the rest by hand shaping,
which is also evidence of mixing.
In the absence of material memories, we can only guess what
what happened next to Kesznyéten was the Romans, the Avars
or just in the age of the conquering Hungarians. Everything
likely - based only on what has been said about the name of the village
also - that our ancestors may have settled in this nomad very early on
in a landscape ideal for animal husbandry. Archaeological
9
however, their memories have not yet succeeded
to find it, not to look for it so far
nobody.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%A1va-Holigrady_culture


The Gáva-Holigrady culture was a late Bronze Age culture of Eastern Slovakia, Western Ukraine (Zakarpats'ka Oblast and Dnister river basin), Northwestern Romania and Northeastern Hungary.

It is considered a subtype of the Urnfield culture.

Gava-Holigrady culture is named after an archaeological settlement Gava in Northeastern Hungary and an archaeological site Holigrady (Голігради) in Ukrainian Ternopil Oblast.

In Slovakia, the culture has originated in the early twentieth century BC.

Gáva people lived in settlements and castles that they built in the Slovakian and Transylvanian uplands.

Gava-Holigrad people are considered to be of Thracian (?) ethnicity.

Strider99
03-01-2021, 02:30 PM
It’s been a while since we had anything new to discuss here with regard to ancient I1 (and pre-I1), but hopefully this one is worth the wait.

This preprint came out on biorvix last year – link https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.08.19.256412v1 – and main premise of the paper is a minimally destructive method for extracting ancient DNA from dental cementum of tooth roots. This is interesting of itself, as hopefully it will allow the analysis of some samples that have not been conducted due to reluctance to allow irreversible damage to the ancient remains.

What is interesting (but isn’t touched on in the preprint itself) is the Y-DNA haplogroup of one of the individuals in this study, HUNG153 (individual 13 in the preprint). The researchers did two analyses on this individual, one using the minimally destructive extraction and another using whole tooth root completely powdered via milling. As a result, there are two BAM files with ID I20745 and I20767 for this individual and the BAM files are at ENA.

Having two BAM files isn’t a problem as the IGV allows the viewing of more than one BAM file simultaneously. Looking at HUNG153’s genome, there are reads for 56 SNPs on the I1 level – 45 derived, 10 ancestral and one ambiguous.

Derived calls: Z2699 (3C), L840 (1G), Z2880 (1A), FGC7747 (1G), Z2718 (1T), Z2756 (2T), Z2807 (1T), Z2729 (1T), Z2751 (1A), Z2700 (1C), CTS6140 (1C), Z2823 (1T), L496 (1T), Z2752 (1G), FGC2422 (1T), CTS11042 (1C), CTS1755/Z2750 (1T), Z2717 (1G), CTS9518 (1T), CTS8394 (2A), L81 (1C), Z2825 (1A), Z2805 (1A), Z2723 (1T), CTS9486 (1T), Z2705 (1T), Z2836 (1G), Z2812 (1T), FGC2438 (1G), Y1950 (CTGG to CGGA, deletion of T), Z2852 (2T), CTS4295 (1T), CTS2410 (1A), Z2724 (1A), L764 (2T), FGC2441 (1G), CTS9487 (1A), CTS641 (2T), Z2775 (1C), CTS11675 (1T), Y1940 (1T), CTS8708 (1A), Z2851 (2G), CTS22 (1A).

Ancestral calls: Z2726 (2A), Y964 (1G), Z2846 (1C), L347 (3C), CTS6006 (1G), CTS6022 (1G), Z6116 (1A or 3A), Z2828 (1A), Z2683 (6C), Y1873 (1C).

Ambiguous calls: L1439 (1A, 1C).

So HUNG153 is pre-I1, but he is closer to modern I1 than any of the other confirmed pre-I1 samples (more derived to ancestral ratio, although as with all ancient DNA samples, a large number of no calls). He is also the youngest confirmed pre-I1, with the preprint Table 1 listing him as dated to 2,600-2,400 BP. This also makes him a pre-I1 that’s around after the TMRCA of modern I1.

The preprint says the sample is from Kesznyéten-Szérűskert, Hungary. Kesznyéten is a village Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén County in northeastern Hungary. I couldn’t find much about the archaeological context of this individual – the preprint references Hellebrandt 1988, but all I’ve been able to find are things like this https://en.mandadb.hu/common/file-servlet/document/895687/default/doc_url/19_48_A_BAZ_Megyei_Mzeumi_Szervezet_munkaterve_898 4.pdf which appears to be an article written in Hungarian and then scanned. Don’t seem to be able to cut and paste into auto-translation tools. If anyone has any better luck (or can translate themselves), I’d be interested.

So this is the closest pre-I1 we have to the root of modern I1, both in terms of SNPs and age. An interesting one, I’m sure fellow ancient I1 enthusiasts will agree.

Very cool. HUNG153 along with BAB5 gives us 2 pre-I1 from Hungary, right? I wonder if that's just a coincidence or not.

deadly77
03-01-2021, 06:39 PM
On the genome data alone, there isn't enough to assign BAB5 to pre-I1 as the researchers only tested 33 SNPs and only one of these (M253) is relevant to I1. Given the age of BAB5 puts him before the TMRCA of modern I1, he's very likely pre-I1. But due to the lack of data, it's difficult to say where he branched off. BAB5 and HUNG153 aren't contemporaries though - BAB5 is dated to 5600-4900 BCE by archaeological context while HUNG153 is dated to 2,600-2,400 BP - or 650-450 BCE. So they're a similar magnitude of time apart from each other as we are from the MRCA of I1.

Also from Hungary we have the two samples from the Hungarian conquerors/Avar paper - K2/26 and SzO/540. These are both after the TMRCA of modern I1 with K2/26 dated to 895 CE to mid 10th century and SzO/540 dated to 600–650/660 CE. But again the data is poor, SzO/540 only has 5 I1 SNPs read and K2/26 only has three. Since we have evidence of pre-I1 surviving past the TMRCA of modern I1, and we don't know when all pre-I1 lines went extinct, we can't assume that these are full I1. Same goes for the RISE samples. The other Hungarian ancient sample is SZ45 from the Lombard period cemetery at Szólád dated 6th century CE - he's definitely I1 due to good data and a lot of confirmed downstream SNPs. And that tells us we can't assume K2/26 or SzO/540 are pre-I1. Bit of murky waters with some of these poor data samples.

Overall, in a wider context, with the pre-I1 samples we know about so far, I think this leans more to a widespread distribution of pre-I1 around Europe as a minor lineage and modern I1 resulting from a much more recent founder effect and rapid expansion at the same time as R1a and R1b. I think the presence of HUNG153 means it's less likely that the population bottleneck of I1 stems from the ancestors of modern I1 being isolated from the rest of Europe (which I didn't think was really the case anyway).

mwauthy
03-02-2021, 04:02 PM
I wonder if/when a much larger percentage of men from this area of Europe get thorough Y chromosome testing done if we won’t find a “pre-I1” alive today?

deadly77
03-02-2021, 05:30 PM
I wonder if/when a much larger percentage of men from this area of Europe get thorough Y chromosome testing done if we won’t find a “pre-I1” alive today?

It's not impossible. It might not get picked up on by the majority of tests - even the Big Y700 has a fair of no calls as it's a enrichment assay, and it's probably more noticeable in I1 samples due to the huge phylogenetic block. Although the positive results for SNPs in downstream branches can effectively rule out pre-I1 for most Big Y testers. Would likely only get full confirmation using a WGS, and the number of men who have taken that test is a much smaller pool. As far as I'm aware, no one to date has broken up the I1 phylogenetic block with a confirmed ancestral SNP on that level. But just because we we haven't found one yet, doesn't mean that they don't exist. They have had to move the root of the Y-tree at Y-Adam back on discovery of new samples. But in comparison, the most well tested population in the consumer DNA market is North America which has a lot of European ancestry, so chances are probably higher than some other places.

spruithean
03-02-2021, 11:06 PM
This is honestly really interesting news, perhaps in the future we'll finally be able to flesh out the history of I1 with a more complete picture.

CopperAxe
03-03-2021, 12:03 AM
Apologies for barging into thid thread amd potentially beating a dead horse, but what is everyone's take on the origin, trail and distribution of I1?

Or simply put, where did it first develop, which populations did it latch on to and spread with, and when did the major founder effects of the I1 lineages take place?

Relevant TMRCAs and deep subclades of the haplogroups are welcome, as well as some info on the oldest solid I1 samples and their most probable pre-I1 predecessors. Speculation is definitely welcome, do don't hold back your thoughts!

It would be interesting to hear what you guys have to say.

JMcB
03-03-2021, 03:54 AM
Apologies for barging into thid thread amd potentially beating a dead horse, but what is everyone's take on the origin, trail and distribution of I1?

Or simply put, where did it first develop, which populations did it latch on to and spread with, and when did the major founder effects of the I1 lineages take place?

Relevant TMRCAs and deep subclades of the haplogroups are welcome, as well as some info on the oldest solid I1 samples and their most probable pre-I1 predecessors. Speculation is definitely welcome, do don't hold back your thoughts!

It would be interesting to hear what you guys have to say.


Perhaps, a good place to start would be with Deadly77’s map. If you haven’t seen it already.

You can always find it in his signature or here:

https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid=1znTXv7qpl4_2T4u9068jOaLzpsjNf62F&ll=55.53882686743272,-26.647114350000038&z=3&fbclid=IwAR1RFLbSoE4JQWsZg-9sENG0UwjIvTm0DoHgokcIkFcLpRGi9YMSIzjeugI

Strider99
03-03-2021, 10:49 AM
Apologies for barging into thid thread amd potentially beating a dead horse, but what is everyone's take on the origin, trail and distribution of I1?

Or simply put, where did it first develop, which populations did it latch on to and spread with, and when did the major founder effects of the I1 lineages take place?

It would be interesting to hear what you guys have to say.

My own, completely amateur speculative take:

I think that it's quite likely that I1 was present in a farmer pocket rich in hunter-gatherer ancestry somewhere in Central Europe (Poland, Germany?) during the time of the Corded Ware expansion into Germany. Given that we have quite a few samples from Middle Neolithic EEF groups in Germany, maybe it would've been the Rössen culture. As far as I know there are no samples from Rössen yet. Anyway, considering that current samples from Neolithic Central Europe tells us that I1 can't have been common, it must have been a pretty damn rare lineage even there. Then there's the over 300 unique mutations (suggesting maybe that I1 originated in a fairly small population?).

We know things didn't end up great for most farmers in Poland, Germany, etc. Massacres like the one discussed in this study were probably commonplace. https://www.pnas.org/content/116/22/10705
However, we also know that in rare cases the Indo-Europeans assimilated local males ;) Since the TMRCA of I1 is thought to be 2500 BC-ish that does align pretty well with a possible assimilation into Indo-European speaking groups. If I could guess I'd say that they probably brought I1 into Scandinavia, but we know that Battle Axe men mostly carried R1a, so if they did bring I1 it would have to be very rare among them still.

I remember that Davidski at Eurogenes pointed out that I1 would have to have been at very low frequency prior to the Nordic Bronze Age. This is because the phylogeny of I1 is, as he describes it in the comment section of this blog post, very shallow: https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2019/08/isotopes-vs-ancient-dna-in-prehistoric.html
The rather explosive growth of I1 makes it pretty clear that males of some clans carrying I1 were very successful during the Nordic Bronze Age.
If we assume that sample RISE179 despite low coverage is a "full-fledged I1", that could give some kind of hint towards how this process went. If he was, then it would seem that some I1-carriers had attained a high status in the Late Neolithic Scandinavian society and this merely continued in the Nordic Bronze Age. The details of his burial hints at him belonging to the elite, as does the details of the burial of Nordic Bronze Age sample RISE175.

I think that Riverman on this forum has an interesting theory on the origin of I1, as well. He, if I remember right, believes that it spread towards Scandinavia during or right after the Unetice culture collapse. I believe that is how he explained the important role of I1 in the Nordic Bronze Age. In the case of his theory being right, they would probably have had to arrived together with LN groups rich in R1b-U106 and some I2a2 lineages. However, there is no I1 in current Y-DNA samples from the Unetice culture. Then again, Unetice Y-DNA is quite diverse and the culture was not a single genetic entity, but had huge regional variation. Although doesn't sample oll009 predate the Unetice collapse by at least some time? Then there's the context of his burial which doesn't really hint at anything Unetice-related at all. Rather, it's just your typical Nordic LN stuff. On a side note, R1b-U106 in Scandinavia also predates any potential migrants from Unetice ( sample RISE98) which is a little strange.

Going through some of the current evidence (or lack thereof):

All Ahrensburg-derived Scandinavian hunter-gatherer cultures seem to have been rather consistent carriers of I2a/I2a1 lineages, excluding SF11 and some Y-DNA outliers like the more northern SHG with EHG lineages. I think there was 1 or 2 R1b SHG so far.
Motala SHG: I2a1 and I2c
SW Norway SHG: I2-M438
Northern Norway SHG (Steigen): I2a1b-M423
Stora Bjers Gotland SHG: I2-L68
Pitted Ware culture SHG from which there is now 9 or 10 Y-DNA samples: I2
Scandinavian Funnelbeaker, Rössberga: I*/IJ* (low coverage sample)
Middle Neolithic Walternienburg-Bernburg culture, these guys are believed to have been back-migrants from Scandinavia/North of Saxony, returning south with more WHG admixture (very high) and possibly different Y-DNA. Y-DNA: I2a1. WB samples are from Haak 2015 and Mathieson 2018.

Something fairly dramatic must obviously have happened to change this absolute dominance of I2 lineages that lasted well into the Neolithic, and we know that was the Indo-Europeans. I know that some people like to speak about PIE migrations as some kind of doomsday event and maybe that was the case for many local men native to Europe. But I can't shake the feeling that these migrations did I1-carriers a massive favor taking into account how rare I1 seems to have been prior to them and how much it must have thrived during the Bronze Age. The question is if you had I1-rich Late Neolithic groups walking around in Scandinavia and Northern Germany or not which is why it will be so interesting to get more LN samples. I think it's very interesting and also quite frustrating that there are hundreds of very old ancient I2, R1b, R1a, etc samples to be found in the DNA record but so far our earliest real I1 is Late Neolithic.

As for the later dispersion of I1 we know that the Germanic expansion during the Migration Period played a huge role. As did the Viking Age. My own rambling aside, I would love to hear the theories of more seasoned people here.

Kaltmeister
03-05-2021, 08:44 AM
Strider99: Thanks for your ideas - but I think it is better to reserve this already quite extensive thread for the discussion of ancient I1-samples. A good location to deal with the origin of I1 is this place. You will find there my ideas about an origin in northern Scandinavia:

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?15255-I1-Migration-Story

Strider99
03-05-2021, 10:23 AM
I forgot to mention that Rössberga isn't the only Scandinavian TRB sample we have. There's also another 4 samples. Scandinavian Funnelbeaker, Gotland: I2a1 (all 4).

deadly77
03-06-2021, 07:11 PM
My own, completely amateur speculative take:



There's a fair bit in here that I agree with:

I think you're spot on with the TMRCA of modern I1 coinciding with the arrival of R1a/R1b into Europe from the Steppe. Batini et al's paper in Nature here https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms8152 shows the coalescent times are recent and close. I don't think that's a coincidence and the difference of I1 compared to most of the other pre-Steppe indigenous European haplogroups is quite stark (see Figure 1 in that paper). It does strongly hint of assimilation, and after several generations, the I1 folks would be unlikely to consider themselves different from the R1b/R1a folks. I think the expansion post bottleneck via the founder effect tells us a lot more than what was going on pre bottleneck.

Also agree that if I1 was around in any great concentration prior to the Steppe invasions, we'd see more representation in the ancient DNA of that time, which is largely dominated by I2, as you point out. Of course, the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, but we should work with the data that we have rather than chasing ghosts that may not exist just because some people want it to be true. My feeling is that most I1 that we might find from this time period is more likely pre-I1 that is an extinct offshoot from the branch that lead to modern I1. As in not the patrilineal ancestors of I1 that are around today. I'd agree with Davidski's point that I1 would have been at very low frequency prior to the Nordic Bronze Age and because of this, finding pre-bottleneck samples that were the Y-DNA ancestors of modern I1 is getting into needle in a haystack territory.

As I've said before, in my opinion the genomic data of the RISE samples is not strong enough to confidently assign them as full I1. RISE175 has derived calls for 8 of the SNPs on the I1 level, while RISE179 has just two. Given that the YFull tree defines modern I1 as having 309 phylogenetic SNPs, then that's only 2.6% or 0.6% of the SNPs covered. Put another way, I'd have 97.4% uncertainty for RISE175 and 99.4% uncertainty for RISE179. I think that becomes a valid concern given that HUNG153 is an example of a pre-I1 existing after the TMRCA of modern I1 and also after the dating of RISE175 and RISE179. I just think it's too uncertain to say anything with any confidence.

I'll defer to others on the discussion of some of the cultures mentioned (Rössen, Unetice) as I just don't know enough about them and haven't read enough yet. I think it's unlikely that cultures such as Rössen were single haplogroup and I don't think it's that precisely localized, given that we've seen pre-I1 samples in a variety of locations such as Iberia and Scandinavia as well as central Europe. I'd agree the timing for Unetice seems a little off.

Ultimately, I think we're going to need a lot more samples from the relevant time periods, and in greater quality. The vast majority of the "ancient" I1 samples that we have are from after 400 CE. But that's a lot more than what we had 3-4 years ago.

deadly77
03-06-2021, 09:17 PM
Apologies for barging into thid thread amd potentially beating a dead horse, but what is everyone's take on the origin, trail and distribution of I1?

Or simply put, where did it first develop, which populations did it latch on to and spread with, and when did the major founder effects of the I1 lineages take place?

Relevant TMRCAs and deep subclades of the haplogroups are welcome, as well as some info on the oldest solid I1 samples and their most probable pre-I1 predecessors. Speculation is definitely welcome, do don't hold back your thoughts!

It would be interesting to hear what you guys have to say.

As well as JMcB's recommendation for my Ancient I1 map, I'd also suggest the earlier pages of this thread - the map is a condensed summary of a lot of the samples that we've discussed in the thread. I realize that its pretty long, but I think it's worth going through as you'll see several people's different opinions rather than one individual post.

I'd also say you should probably define more precisely what you mean by origin of I1 and where it first developed. That could be interpreted as when I1 broke away from I2 and I*, or it could be interpreted as the most recent common ancestor of modern I1 living today - essentially the last point of diversity. Because of the large number of phylogenetically equivalent SNPs that define haplogroup I1, there's a large gap in time between the two events. For me it's the latter - I think I1 is defined by all of those SNPs rather than just a few. I've been referring to the ancient samples that are before the TMRCA and have ancestral reads for SNPs on the I1 branch as "pre-I1" rather than I1.

For TMRCAs I'd refer to the current version of the YFull tree. For founder effects within I1 (itself with it's own founder effect) also look for subclades with a significant number of phyloequivalent SNPs followed by a lot of diverse branching after that point. Perhaps easier to see on the YFull tree than the FTDNA public haplotree. As an example on my own line, there's a fair bit of defined steady branching through the levels I-Z58, I-Z59, I-CTS8647, I-Z61, I-Z60, I-Z140, I-Z141, I-Z2535 with only one or two SNPs at each level and a fair bit of diversity in branches downstream of that. Then at the I-YSC261/I-L338 level there is a block of 16 SNPs that hasn't been broken up yet which then splits into a fair bit of diversity immediately downstream. I'd say that looks like a good example of a founder effect, although not as large as the founder effect for I1 itself. Many more to be found, so no real point listing them all. In terms of the downstream arrangement of I1, over 99% are I-DF29 and a minor amount on other branches. The I-DF29 branch has three major sub-branches: I-Z2336, I-Z58 and I-Z63. Of these, I-Z2336 and I-Z58 are pretty well represented among ancient samples. I-Z63 less so with only three confirmed and only one confirmed example of an I1 that's outside of I-DF29. Many ancient samples don't have optimal coverage due to degradation of the remains post mortem over the centuries or the assay used to capture the data, or a combination of the two. So in quite a few cases, we don't have all the data to accurately assign the appropriate subclade.

Oldest solid I1 ancient sample is oll009. Details on this sample are on my map or in the thread above - go to page 54, post #531 and read from there. There are some others which may be I1 or pre-I1 but the genomic data isn't the greatest with makes determining that with any degree of confidence more challenging.

There are currently four confirmed pre-I1 ancient samples. They are on the map represented by a skull and crossbones icon. I don't believe any of these are patrilineal ancestors of what eventually became I1. My feeling is that these are offshoots from the branch which became I1 and represent extinct Y-DNA lineages with no Y-DNA descendants alive today.

Unfortunately we're lacking a significant number of samples closer to the TMRCA of I1. The vast majority of "ancient" samples we have now are from after 400 CE.

deadly77
03-06-2021, 09:19 PM
Duplicate post

deadly77
03-06-2021, 09:22 PM
This is honestly really interesting news, perhaps in the future we'll finally be able to flesh out the history of I1 with a more complete picture.

Yes - agreed. I'm actually a little surprised that this sample hasn't sparked a bit more discussion.

Strider99
03-07-2021, 11:25 AM
There's a fair bit in here that I agree with:

I think you're spot on with the TMRCA of modern I1 coinciding with the arrival of R1a/R1b into Europe from the Steppe. Batini et al's paper in Nature here https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms8152 shows the coalescent times are recent and close. I don't think that's a coincidence and the difference of I1 compared to most of the other pre-Steppe indigenous European haplogroups is quite stark (see Figure 1 in that paper). It does strongly hint of assimilation, and after several generations, the I1 folks would be unlikely to consider themselves different from the R1b/R1a folks. I think the expansion post bottleneck via the founder effect tells us a lot more than what was going on pre bottleneck.

Also agree that if I1 was around in any great concentration prior to the Steppe invasions, we'd see more representation in the ancient DNA of that time, which is largely dominated by I2, as you point out. Of course, the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, but we should work with the data that we have rather than chasing ghosts that may not exist just because some people want it to be true. My feeling is that most I1 that we might find from this time period is more likely pre-I1 that is an extinct offshoot from the branch that lead to modern I1. As in not the patrilineal ancestors of I1 that are around today. I'd agree with Davidski's point that I1 would have been at very low frequency prior to the Nordic Bronze Age and because of this, finding pre-bottleneck samples that were the Y-DNA ancestors of modern I1 is getting into needle in a haystack territory.


I'll defer to others on the discussion of some of the cultures mentioned (Rössen, Unetice) as I just don't know enough about them and haven't read enough yet. I think it's unlikely that cultures such as Rössen were single haplogroup and I don't think it's that precisely localized, given that we've seen pre-I1 samples in a variety of locations such as Iberia and Scandinavia as well as central Europe. I'd agree the timing for Unetice seems a little off.

Ultimately, I think we're going to need a lot more samples from the relevant time periods, and in greater quality. The vast majority of the "ancient" I1 samples that we have are from after 400 CE. But that's a lot more than what we had 3-4 years ago.

Thank you, the phylogenetic tree (if that's what it's called?) in figure 1 is helpful. It's actually quite amazing how deep the phylogeny of I2 is and how shallow the phylogeny of I1 is in comparison. It is interesting that I2 had a very high frequency in Europe prior to the PIE migrations while I1 was the exact opposite – clearly one lineage suffered greatly from this phenomenon while the other benefitted massively.

Would you say the sample sizes and sample selection in the Batini study is a little bit off? For example, it says that I1 reaches a frequency of 50% among Frisians. Frisians are known to have certain genetic affinities to Scandinavians that are very visible on a PCA, but the 50% number doesn't really add upp with the results of other papers. The same goes for the rest of the frequencies in other populations in Batini 2015. Maybe it's just due to the small sample size. They only tested 20 Frisians, after all.

It's really a shame about the low coverage of some of the samples from Allentoft 2015, but I guess in a way we're fortunate to have the sample oll009. There is a plethora of Late Neolithic burials scattered across Norway, Sweden and Denmark so the odds for finding similar individuals in the future are at least in our favour.

As you say, Rössen probably wasn't dominated by just 1 haplogroup. I think it slightly predates the more typical hunter-gatherer influenced Middle Neolithic EEF groups like Michelsberg, TRB, etc as well, meaning it might not have been as strongly dominated by I2a1 as your average megalithic building culture was. Then again, based solely on mtDNA Rössen, at least according to this paper, might already have had significantly more hunter-gatherer ancestry than LBK groups: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271951433_Ancient_DNA_insights_from_the_Middle_Neo lithic_in_Germany#pf6
I only gave Rössen as an example of a potential "hideout" for I1, but that's really just because Rössen Y-DNA remains unsampled. Come to think of it, the fact that skeletal remains from the cultures succeeding Rössen are quite thoroughly tested and mostly seem to have yielded I2 lineages doesn't exactly add to the strength of the theory of a potential Rössen origin. But who knows. Even if I1 was hiding out in German TRB it could have been as few as a handful, or even 1 man, so the chances of finding the remains of that man or those of his clan seem slim.

Hopefully the follow-up project to the population genomics of the Viking world currently being done by Copenhagen will result in many Late Neolithic and Nordic Bronze Age samples from multiple regions across Scandinavia and Northern Germany. That would be very helpful.

deadly77
03-07-2021, 05:41 PM
Thank you, the phylogenetic tree (if that's what it's called?) in figure 1 is helpful. It's actually quite amazing how deep the phylogeny of I2 is and how shallow the phylogeny of I1 is in comparison. It is interesting that I2 had a very high frequency in Europe prior to the PIE migrations while I1 was the exact opposite – clearly one lineage suffered greatly from this phenomenon while the other benefitted massively.

Would you say the sample sizes and sample selection in the Batini study is a little bit off? For example, it says that I1 reaches a frequency of 50% among Frisians. Frisians are known to have certain genetic affinities to Scandinavians that are very visible on a PCA, but the 50% number doesn't really add upp with the results of other papers. The same goes for the rest of the frequencies in other populations in Batini 2015. Maybe it's just due to the small sample size. They only tested 20 Frisians, after all.

Yes, I believe it's down to small Frisian sample size and I don't believe the 50% I1 is representative of the overall population. Eupedia reports 16.5% I1 in the Netherlands with a larger sample size, and it's likely closer than that. There's an oft quoted similar statistic that I see from time to time regarding I1 percentages of "up to 50% of the population in some areas of Sweden" and sometimes referencing Gotland. I think I've tracked the origin of that statistic down to a 2006 paper which lists 40 samples from Gotland and 18 of them are I1a and 2 are I1c (which we would classify today as I2) and I think that's where the 20/40=50% comes from. I think that also suffers from the same small sample size inflation and the true percentage is likely closer to the national average of 37% I1 on larger sample size.

However, Batini et al. weren't doing a comprehensive Y-DNA census - overall they sampled 334 males across 17 populations, but they analyzed the samples in greater detail than some other studies, so it's possible to get downstream subclade information, which feeds into their goal of generating a reasonable amount of detail and the calculation of phylogenetic trees and TMRCAs. I did a deeper dive into the I1 samples from this paper a while ago in this thread here https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?17749-A-closer-look-at-the-I1-samples-from-Batini-et-al-Nat-Commun-2015

But it's absolutely something we should bear in mind with the ancient samples, as we're dealing with really small sample sizes of those.

deadly77
03-07-2021, 05:45 PM
It's really a shame about the low coverage of some of the samples from Allentoft 2015, but I guess in a way we're fortunate to have the sample oll009. There is a plethora of Late Neolithic burials scattered across Norway, Sweden and Denmark so the odds for finding similar individuals in the future are at least in our favour.

As you say, Rössen probably wasn't dominated by just 1 haplogroup. I think it slightly predates the more typical hunter-gatherer influenced Middle Neolithic EEF groups like Michelsberg, TRB, etc as well, meaning it might not have been as strongly dominated by I2a1 as your average megalithic building culture was. Then again, based solely on mtDNA Rössen, at least according to this paper, might already have had significantly more hunter-gatherer ancestry than LBK groups: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271951433_Ancient_DNA_insights_from_the_Middle_Neo lithic_in_Germany#pf6
I only gave Rössen as an example of a potential "hideout" for I1, but that's really just because Rössen Y-DNA remains unsampled. Come to think of it, the fact that skeletal remains from the cultures succeeding Rössen are quite thoroughly tested and mostly seem to have yielded I2 lineages doesn't exactly add to the strength of the theory of a potential Rössen origin. But who knows. Even if I1 was hiding out in German TRB it could have been as few as a handful, or even 1 man, so the chances of finding the remains of that man or those of his clan seem slim.

Hopefully the follow-up project to the population genomics of the Viking world currently being done by Copenhagen will result in many Late Neolithic and Nordic Bronze Age samples from multiple regions across Scandinavia and Northern Germany. That would be very helpful.

Yes, I think those studies will be very interesting. And the comparative lack of ancient I1 that's been sequenced compared to some of the other haplogroups might actually be a blessing in disguise, as it may mean that the samples that are analyzed from now on would be sequenced with better resolution, leading to (hopefully) better data.

Bygdedweller
03-07-2021, 09:16 PM
Hopefully the follow-up project to the population genomics of the Viking world currently being done by Copenhagen will result in many Late Neolithic and Nordic Bronze Age samples from multiple regions across Scandinavia and Northern Germany. That would be very helpful.
I found some more info: https://www.gu.se/en/news/big-interdisciplinary-project-to-reveal-patterns-of-migration
Looks like it is a continuation of this (https://www.gu.se/en/research/the-rise-ii-towards-a-new-european-prehistory-integrating-adna-isotopic-investigations-language-and-archaeology-to-reinterpret-key-processes-of-change#_Sub-projects), which is still ongoing. Apparently there is also a Norwegian sub-project called "Towards a New European Prehistory – the genetic history of the Late Neolithic and Bronze Age populations of Norway", and I found out that the Norwegian committee for the preservation of skeletal remains had given them permission (https://www.forskningsetikk.no/om-oss/komiteer-og-utvalg/skjelettutvalget/uttalelser/henvendelse-om-provetaking-av-skjelettmateriale-i-prosjektet-towards-a-new-european-prehistory--the-genetic-history-of-the-late-neolithic-and-bronze-age-populations-of-norway-2019233/) to use 48 samples for aDNA and various isotopic analysis:

The purpose of the main project is to establish a genetic history for the Bronze Age populations in Scandinavia, Europe, the Mediterranean and the Middle East. The project is particularly interested n Norway since it belongs to the outskirts of the Nordic Bronze Age-area, which is traditionally based on agriculture and animal husbandry, but where hunting and gathering continued to characterize the coast. The main concern of the Norwegian subproject is to establish a better understanding of the population composition, social structure, way of life, conditions and health in the Late Neolithic and Bronze Age in Norway (approx. 2800 - approx. 500 BC). The period from approx. 2400/2300 is characterized by large and complex changes, including the establishment of an agricultural-based economy. The Norwegian area appears as a melting pot of various cultural impulses and population groups in the period. The project states that there is a lack of knowledge about the consequences of these changes for the Norwegian area as a whole and for various groups in the area.

Apologies if this is venturing off-topic, but I just thought it'd be interesting since it will likely churn out a whole lot more I1-samples as well as help in pinpointing its origin.

epoch
03-08-2021, 01:40 PM
Yes, I believe it's down to small Frisian sample size and I don't believe the 50% I1 is representative of the overall population. Eupedia reports 16.5% I1 in the Netherlands with a larger sample size, and it's likely closer than that. There's an oft quoted similar statistic that I see from time to time regarding I1 percentages of "up to 50% of the population in some areas of Sweden" and sometimes referencing Gotland. I think I've tracked the origin of that statistic down to a 2006 paper which lists 40 samples from Gotland and 18 of them are I1a and 2 are I1c (which we would classify today as I2) and I think that's where the 20/40=50% comes from. I think that also suffers from the same small sample size inflation and the true percentage is likely closer to the national average of 37% I1 on larger sample size.

However, Batini et al. weren't doing a comprehensive Y-DNA census - overall they sampled 334 males across 17 populations, but they analyzed the samples in greater detail than some other studies, so it's possible to get downstream subclade information, which feeds into their goal of generating a reasonable amount of detail and the calculation of phylogenetic trees and TMRCAs. I did a deeper dive into the I1 samples from this paper a while ago in this thread here https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?17749-A-closer-look-at-the-I1-samples-from-Batini-et-al-Nat-Commun-2015

But it's absolutely something we should bear in mind with the ancient samples, as we're dealing with really small sample sizes of those.

From this study (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41431-019-0496-0) the whole of the Netherlands had 18.66% I1 (See table S3 (https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41431-019-0496-0/MediaObjects/41431_2019_496_MOESM1_ESM.pdf)) but Frisia had subtantially higher I-rates (~33%) which likely is mostly I1. (See Fig 5 (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41431-019-0496-0/figures/5)).

JMcB
03-08-2021, 05:06 PM
Deleted

Strider99
03-08-2021, 06:41 PM
Yes, I believe it's down to small Frisian sample size and I don't believe the 50% I1 is representative of the overall population. Eupedia reports 16.5% I1 in the Netherlands with a larger sample size, and it's likely closer than that. There's an oft quoted similar statistic that I see from time to time regarding I1 percentages of "up to 50% of the population in some areas of Sweden" and sometimes referencing Gotland. I think I've tracked the origin of that statistic down to a 2006 paper which lists 40 samples from Gotland and 18 of them are I1a and 2 are I1c (which we would classify today as I2) and I think that's where the 20/40=50% comes from. I think that also suffers from the same small sample size inflation and the true percentage is likely closer to the national average of 37% I1 on larger sample size.

However, Batini et al. weren't doing a comprehensive Y-DNA census - overall they sampled 334 males across 17 populations, but they analyzed the samples in greater detail than some other studies, so it's possible to get downstream subclade information, which feeds into their goal of generating a reasonable amount of detail and the calculation of phylogenetic trees and TMRCAs. I did a deeper dive into the I1 samples from this paper a while ago in this thread here https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?17749-A-closer-look-at-the-I1-samples-from-Batini-et-al-Nat-Commun-2015

But it's absolutely something we should bear in mind with the ancient samples, as we're dealing with really small sample sizes of those.

Ok. I think the 52% I1 in Västra Götaland, Sweden and the >50% I1 in Satakunta, Finland that are often mentioned comes from this Finnish study: https://researchportal.helsinki.fi/sv/publications/migration-waves-to-the-baltic-sea-region
But I know that there are other similar studies by Lappalainen and colleagues involving I1 (and N1c) so maybe there are similar numbers in those.
Lappalainen 2008 has a smaller sample size than this Norwegian study which tested over 1700 Norwegian men and found 37% I1: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16337760/
https://www.norwaydna.no/y-dna/y-haplogrupper/ (this website is in Norwegian)
I wouldn't be surprised if Gotland as you say has a high frequency of I1, but not as high as Østlandet in Norway, Västra Götaland, Satakunta in Finland, etc. Judging by the Gotland FTDNA project around 37-ish% seems like a pretty reasonable estimation in my opinion: https://www.familytreedna.com/public/gotland?iframe=yresults
Although not that many Gutes have been tested yet.

This may be off-topic but since you mention Eupedia, how reliable would you say that website is? I found this thread where Maciamo attempted to link facial features to Y-haplogroups: https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/32833-Does-Y-DNA-influence-one-s-looks-after-all
He speculates that the men of the Skarsgård family belong to haplogroup R1a because, and I quote, "he can't explain it with words. It's just something in their expression". I thought that was pretty funny.
While entertaining, his replies in that thread seem kind of unscientific and biased in my opinion. In regards to the articles he writes many, if not most of them seem pretty outdated. With that said, I guess that doesn't necessarily mean that the numbers/statistics there are all wrong.

Strider99
03-08-2021, 06:44 PM
I found some more info: https://www.gu.se/en/news/big-interdisciplinary-project-to-reveal-patterns-of-migration
Looks like it is a continuation of this (https://www.gu.se/en/research/the-rise-ii-towards-a-new-european-prehistory-integrating-adna-isotopic-investigations-language-and-archaeology-to-reinterpret-key-processes-of-change#_Sub-projects), which is still ongoing. Apparently there is also a Norwegian sub-project called "Towards a New European Prehistory – the genetic history of the Late Neolithic and Bronze Age populations of Norway", and I found out that the Norwegian committee for the preservation of skeletal remains had given them permission (https://www.forskningsetikk.no/om-oss/komiteer-og-utvalg/skjelettutvalget/uttalelser/henvendelse-om-provetaking-av-skjelettmateriale-i-prosjektet-towards-a-new-european-prehistory--the-genetic-history-of-the-late-neolithic-and-bronze-age-populations-of-norway-2019233/) to use 48 samples for aDNA and various isotopic analysis:

The purpose of the main project is to establish a genetic history for the Bronze Age populations in Scandinavia, Europe, the Mediterranean and the Middle East. The project is particularly interested n Norway since it belongs to the outskirts of the Nordic Bronze Age-area, which is traditionally based on agriculture and animal husbandry, but where hunting and gathering continued to characterize the coast. The main concern of the Norwegian subproject is to establish a better understanding of the population composition, social structure, way of life, conditions and health in the Late Neolithic and Bronze Age in Norway (approx. 2800 - approx. 500 BC). The period from approx. 2400/2300 is characterized by large and complex changes, including the establishment of an agricultural-based economy. The Norwegian area appears as a melting pot of various cultural impulses and population groups in the period. The project states that there is a lack of knowledge about the consequences of these changes for the Norwegian area as a whole and for various groups in the area.

Apologies if this is venturing off-topic, but I just thought it'd be interesting since it will likely churn out a whole lot more I1-samples as well as help in pinpointing its origin.

This looks great. Very promising.

deadly77
03-08-2021, 08:44 PM
Ok. I think the 52% I1 in Västra Götaland, Sweden and the >50% I1 in Satakunta, Finland that are often mentioned comes from this Finnish study: https://researchportal.helsinki.fi/sv/publications/migration-waves-to-the-baltic-sea-region
But I know that there are other similar studies by Lappalainen and colleagues involving I1 (and N1c) so maybe there are similar numbers in those.
Lappalainen 2008 has a smaller sample size than this Norwegian study which tested over 1700 Norwegian men and found 37% I1: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16337760/
https://www.norwaydna.no/y-dna/y-haplogrupper/ (this website is in Norwegian)
I wouldn't be surprised if Gotland as you say has a high frequency of I1, but not as high as Østlandet in Norway, Västra Götaland, Satakunta in Finland, etc. Judging by the Gotland FTDNA project around 37-ish% seems like a pretty reasonable estimation in my opinion: https://www.familytreedna.com/public/gotland?iframe=yresults
Although not that many Gutes have been tested yet.

This may be off-topic but since you mention Eupedia, how reliable would you say that website is? I found this thread where Maciamo attempted to link facial features to Y-haplogroups: https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/32833-Does-Y-DNA-influence-one-s-looks-after-all
He speculates that the men of the Skarsgård family belong to haplogroup R1a because, and I quote, "he can't explain it with words. It's just something in their expression". I thought that was pretty funny.
While entertaining, his replies in that thread seem kind of unscientific and biased in my opinion. In regards to the articles he writes many, if not most of them seem pretty outdated. With that said, I guess that doesn't necessarily mean that the numbers/statistics there are all wrong.

Yeah, I think we're venturing further away from the topic of ancient I1 samples, so I'll be brief and then I think if we want to continue, we should move it to a new thread or append to one of the more appropriate existing ones. I'm not blameless as I've been participating in the discussion. Short tangents I think are ok, but longer tangents less so.

So briefly:

I believe the paper the Gotland stat comes from was this one https://www.nature.com/articles/5201651

Eupedia - I went to that webpage a few times when I first started getting into this field a few years ago. Less so as time has gone on. There's some stuff on there that's worth referring to, some less so. Several of the articles haven't been updated in quite some time and as you say are a bit out of date. Made a few posts on the forum there but not many and it's been a long time since I participated. As for the linking facial features to Y-haplogroups, I hadn't seen that but I would say that there's no foundation to that in my opinion, and facial features would be all be down to autosomal DNA. But that's even further off topic, so I'll stop there.

Kaltmeister
03-12-2021, 08:17 AM
[...]
This may be off-topic but since you mention Eupedia, how reliable would you say that website is? I found this thread where Maciamo attempted to link facial features to Y-haplogroups: https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/32833-Does-Y-DNA-influence-one-s-looks-after-all
He speculates that the men of the Skarsgård family belong to haplogroup R1a because, and I quote, "he can't explain it with words. It's just something in their expression". I thought that was pretty funny.
While entertaining, his replies in that thread seem kind of unscientific and biased in my opinion. In regards to the articles he writes many, if not most of them seem pretty outdated. With that said, I guess that doesn't necessarily mean that the numbers/statistics there are all wrong.

Strider99: There is quite a number of people, me included, who think that Y has an effect on the somal constitution.This effect is hard to define, so for my part I reduce it to these two aspects: IJ have a long and narrow skull with an expressed occiput. And if you look straight into the eyes of someone who shares your haplogroup (this works also with photos), you see something familiar, intimate. I know very well this is hypothetic, but give it a try - you may be surprised how well this works. The beginning of every scientific insight is observation.
How would it be possible that Y has an effect on the phenotype? You find my opinion on this topic here:

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?17846-A-selfish-chromosome

Ok, back to ancient I1 now. This thread has been kept quite straight to the topic, making it a comfortable source of information on I1 genesis.

homunculus
03-12-2021, 08:43 AM
And if you look straight into the eyes of someone who shares your haplogroup (this works also with photos), you see something familiar, intimate.
Wouldn't this be likely more to do with the statistical correlation between some autosomal profiles with haplogroups due to shared ancestral history, rather than direct effect of the y-haplogroup on the phenotype? I mean you have R1b individuals with full whg genetic profile down to the craniofacial phenotype as well as Sub-Saharan Africans with R1b with almost no phenotypical or autosomal connection to European R1b carriers.

deadly77
03-12-2021, 07:45 PM
Alright folks, if we were a bit off topic before, I think we've gone a bit further. I think there are always going to be some natural tangents, and we should have a bit of breathing room, but reel it back in when it diverges significantly. Reason I usually try and steer off topic posts away from this thread is that at 89 pages and over 885 posts, it's a pretty heavy thread. Not trying to censor or limit the discussion, but if it continues it should go into another thread.

I'd recommend reviewing the terms of service when constructing posts on this topic, in particular sections 3.12 and 3.16 if this continues in another thread.

Helves
03-12-2021, 08:00 PM
I forgot to mention that Rössberga isn't the only Scandinavian TRB sample we have. There's also another 4 samples. Scandinavian Funnelbeaker, Gotland: I2a1 (all 4).

And Gökhem I believe aswell?

I think I1 started out in a WHG group in the Paris basin, moved to Northern Germany, Netherlands, Scandinavia during the Neolithic and formed the WHG-rich Funnelbeaker culture as one of the minor clades. The immediate ancestor of I-M253 was somewhere in that area, most likely in Germany or Denmark and found it's way to Scandinavia with the first IE speakers and for some reason became one of the major clades in the Nordic Late Neolithic.

Strider99
03-13-2021, 10:41 AM
Alright folks, if we were a bit off topic before, I think we've gone a bit further. I think there are always going to be some natural tangents, and we should have a bit of breathing room, but reel it back in when it diverges significantly. Reason I usually try and steer off topic posts away from this thread is that at 89 pages and over 885 posts, it's a pretty heavy thread.


I think my rant about Eupedia should have been kept to myself since it's what sparked off-topic discussion.

Anyway, in regards to the pre-I1 sample HUNG153 found in Kesznyéten-Szérűskert from Harney 2020, are there any more details about the archeological or cultural context in which he was found? The cemetery seems to have been used for quite a long time and by people of different cultures, not necessarily limited to Gáva-Holigrady. On Eurogenes I remember seeing rumors about an "I1 Scythian" a few months back. I'm guessing HUNG153 is it? Even though it's pre-I1.

I saw in another thread that they apparently found 3 new SHG samples, this time from Huseby:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-019-0399-1
https://www.mediafire.com/file/5df96j2ul48j8rl/Kashuba_2019.zip/file
Although I don't know if they're actually new or not, maybe I just missed that study. In any case, it seems they only analyzed the mtDNA of these three individuals (ble004, ble007, and ble008) and I'm not sure if any of them are even male. If any of them were male however, maybe it's worth checking the files/data for Y-DNA calls just in case? Unfortunately I'm not sure how to do that (yet).

Strider99
03-13-2021, 10:42 AM
And Gökhem I believe aswell?

That's right, Gökhem was I2a1b1-L161.

deadly77
03-13-2021, 12:19 PM
I think my rant about Eupedia should have been kept to myself since it's what sparked off-topic discussion.

Anyway, in regards to the pre-I1 sample HUNG153 found in Kesznyéten-Szérűskert from Harney 2020, are there any more details about the archeological or cultural context in which he was found? The cemetery seems to have been used for quite a long time and by people of different cultures, not necessarily limited to Gáva-Holigrady. On Eurogenes I remember seeing rumors about an "I1 Scythian" a few months back. I'm guessing HUNG153 is it? Even though it's pre-I1.

I saw in another thread that they apparently found 3 new SHG samples, this time from Huseby:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-019-0399-1
https://www.mediafire.com/file/5df96j2ul48j8rl/Kashuba_2019.zip/file
Although I don't know if they're actually new or not, maybe I just missed that study. In any case, it seems they only analyzed the mtDNA of these three individuals (ble004, ble007, and ble008) and I'm not sure if any of them are even male. If any of them were male however, maybe it's worth checking the files/data for Y-DNA calls just in case? Unfortunately I'm not sure how to do that (yet).

No worries - as long was we're getting back on track.

Slavomir shared a better quality pdf of the Hungarian document which allows you to copy and paste via Google Translate, and they posted some excerpts of that back in post #860 on this thread, while the earlier ones of the same document that I found were poorer scans that you couldn't copy and paste from. So I'd start there if you have the time and patience. There are 110 pages, so likely a fair bit of material in there. I haven't dug into it.

Just a note that not everyone uses the pre-I1 distinction and some folks discuss the pre-I1 samples such as BAL051 as if they're included in full I1, and some people group I1 and pre-I1 together as they split of from I2 and I*. I think it's better to have the distinction. With the other pre-I1 samples where they are dated prior to the modern I1 TMRCA, there's also a further distinction there but in the case of HUNG153 being dated after the modern I1 TMRCA and therefore contemporary with I1, could be a bit muddier in some people's perceptions until you dig down into the BAM file.

I recall those SHG samples coming up a couple of years ago. I believe someone ran ble008's data through some automated extraction tool and that gave some positive results for I1 SNPs. However, in the paper Table 1, ble008 was listed as XX (ie, female). I looked at the BAM files for all three samples using IGV. From my notes, ble008 on the X chromosome had a lot of positions were visually heterozygous which to me indicates that there are two X chromosomes (and so consistent with the paper's designation of female). ble004 was also female. ble007 was classified as male. I got about a third of the way through the I1 SNPs on his BAM file - there were no derived reads - all were no call or ancestral. I don't believe I completed going through it but my feeling is that it is unlikely that ble007 is pre-I1. Someone else may have done a more complete analysis.

Norfern-Ostrobothnian
03-16-2021, 06:50 AM
No worries - as long was we're getting back on track.

Slavomir shared a better quality pdf of the Hungarian document which allows you to copy and paste via Google Translate, and they posted some excerpts of that back in post #860 on this thread, while the earlier ones of the same document that I found were poorer scans that you couldn't copy and paste from. So I'd start there if you have the time and patience. There are 110 pages, so likely a fair bit of material in there. I haven't dug into it.

Just a note that not everyone uses the pre-I1 distinction and some folks discuss the pre-I1 samples such as BAL051 as if they're included in full I1, and some people group I1 and pre-I1 together as they split of from I2 and I*. I think it's better to have the distinction. With the other pre-I1 samples where they are dated prior to the modern I1 TMRCA, there's also a further distinction there but in the case of HUNG153 being dated after the modern I1 TMRCA and therefore contemporary with I1, could be a bit muddier in some people's perceptions until you dig down into the BAM file.

I recall those SHG samples coming up a couple of years ago. I believe someone ran ble008's data through some automated extraction tool and that gave some positive results for I1 SNPs. However, in the paper Table 1, ble008 was listed as XX (ie, female). I looked at the BAM files for all three samples using IGV. From my notes, ble008 on the X chromosome had a lot of positions were visually heterozygous which to me indicates that there are two X chromosomes (and so consistent with the paper's designation of female). ble004 was also female. ble007 was classified as male. I got about a third of the way through the I1 SNPs on his BAM file - there were no derived reads - all were no call or ancestral. I don't believe I completed going through it but my feeling is that it is unlikely that ble007 is pre-I1. Someone else may have done a more complete analysis.

What does ble007 seem to be? I* or I2?

deadly77
03-16-2021, 05:37 PM
I didn't check any of the SNPs on the I or I2 level, so no idea - he may not be either or related to haplogroup I at all. I'm not aware of any evidence that he is. FTDNA notes that ble007 has a positive result for U106, but notes that U106 (C>T) in ancient samples can be misleading - see VK232 on this page where they comment LAV010, NA34, I7779, ble007, R55 and EDM124 are all non-R ancient samples that are U106+. https://dna-explained.com/2020/09/18/442-ancient-viking-skeletons-hold-dna-surprises-does-your-y-or-mitochondrial-dna-match-daily-updates-here/

If anyone has assigned ble007 to a Y-DNA haplogroup, I'm not aware of it. It's a very low coverage sample so it may not even be possible. This sample is from thousand of years old chewing gum, rather than actual remains.

Strider99
03-23-2021, 07:03 PM
Mobility patterns in inland southwestern Sweden during the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs12520-021-01294-4

My heart skipped a few beats out of excitement when I saw the title. Gallery graves and megalithic graves. 40 previously unpublished samples! However...:biggrin1:

Not a single mention of Y-chromosome haplogroups did I see while skimming through it in haste :\ . Quite a few male samples were obtained, too. I couldn't find anything about Y-DNA in the supplementary information files either. Pretty anticlimactic. Aside from that, it's a very well-made and interesting study.

Bygdedweller
03-23-2021, 07:18 PM
Mobility patterns in inland southwestern Sweden during the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs12520-021-01294-4

My heart skipped a few beats out of excitement when I saw the title. Gallery graves and megalithic graves. 40 previously unpublished samples! However...:biggrin1:

Not a single mention of Y-chromosome haplogroups did I see while skimming through it in haste :\ . Quite a few male samples were obtained, too. I couldn't find anything about Y-DNA in the supplementary information files either. Pretty anticlimactic. Aside from that, it's a very well-made and interesting study.
Yeah, I saw that, what a tease... It's excellent research though, no doubt. I've scoured through the supplements and found nothing related to Y-DNA either, although it's clear they are sitting on a great deal of unreleased data. It's nice to know there's more coming:

To determine whether kinship groups actually used the graves, genome-wide aDNA analyses are required. An ongoing aDNA study, including nuclear aDNA data from some of the sampled individuals, is going to address this question as well as more general demographic aspects.

deadly77
03-24-2021, 06:09 AM
Quite often with these ancient DNA papers, there's usually a bit of text at the end which tells you that the raw data (BAM, FASTQ) of the sequences has been deposited at ENA or NCBI, while this paper doesn't have that. I'd agree that this isn't the full story and we should expect another paper which will likely discuss Y-DNA and autosomal.

altvred
04-05-2021, 06:56 AM
By chance, I stumbled onto some high coverage human aDNA samples from a paper about a Medieval mass burial site in Lubeck linked to a Typhoid fever outbreak in the city in the 1300s.

https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJEB41353
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3762113

So far, I've only analyzed one individual - HGH-1600, a male with an average depth of coverage of x4 on the Y chromosome, which isn't too shabby for Ancient DNA, even if only dated to the late Medieval period.

I checked his YSNPs on Clade Finder:

https://i.imgur.com/GXXEZHm.png

He's negative for all downstream SNPs and is I-Y8334*

There is another aDNA I-Y8334* on YFull, VK327, a Viking age sample from Denmark.

Here's a link to his Y Chr BAM. The submitted format is FASTQ, so I had to convert it.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/5or03ijep3oa1db/HGH-1600.rmdup.chrY.bam?dl=1

deadly77
04-05-2021, 07:37 AM
By chance, I stumbled onto some high coverage human aDNA samples from a paper about a Medieval mass burial site in Lubeck linked to a Typhoid fever outbreak in the city in the 1300s.

https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJEB41353
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3762113

So far, I've only analyzed one individual - HGH-1600, a male with an average depth of coverage of x4 on the Y chromosome, which isn't too shabby for Ancient DNA, even if only dated to the late Medieval period.

I checked his YSNPs on Clade Finder:

https://i.imgur.com/GXXEZHm.png

He's negative for all downstream SNPs and is I-Y8334*

There is another aDNA I-Y8334* on YFull, VK327, a Viking age sample from Denmark.

Here's a link to his Y Chr BAM. The submitted format is FASTQ, so I had to convert it.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/5or03ijep3oa1db/HGH-1600.rmdup.chrY.bam?dl=1

Good find. Coverage not too shabby at all, given some that I've seen.

deadly77
04-05-2021, 01:37 PM
I had a closer look using IGV - picks up some of the SNPs that the cladefinder didn't - some of these are one-read, so perhaps not surprising. Also looked at some of the branches in that genetic neighborhood that are on FTDNA but not YFull - although still negative for all known downstream branches.

Derived SNPs: Y8335 / A1818 (2A), Y8844 / BY462 (4A), Y14669 (1A), A1830 / Y14670 (6A), Y8334 / BY463 (3A), BY466 / Z44259 (2A), Y8845 / BY467 (2A), A1841 / Y28952 (3T), A2083 / Y28953 (1G), BY464 / Y8336 (1T), BY465 / Y8337 (7G), A18766 (5A).

Ancestral SNPs: A7322 (4G), FT124056 (4C), Y185625 (3G), A4637 (1T), A4636 (5C), FT166204 (4C), PH4523 (3G), PH4462 (2A, 1C), A1821 (4G), A1822 (2A), BY31745 (5G), A7320 (8G), A7323 (5T), FT123289 (3G), FT123669 (1C), FT135172 (1A), FT91008 (2C), PH4341 (4G), A19967 (3G), A19973 (2G), A19976 (2C), A19977 (1C), FT198737 (3T), BY67591 (5G, 1A), FT199038 (4A), FT199374 (3C), FT358549 (1C).

Ambiguous SNPs: FT115464 (3C, 2T), CTS12998 (1C, 1T).

No Call SNPs: Y8333 / BY461, Y185865, Y8846 / BY468, A18803, CTS10169, A7327, FT197560, FT198614, FT358494, FGC74283 / Y135134.

I've sent an email to YFull to ask if they'll consider adding this one. Should have decent enough coverage. Would be interesting if HGH-1600 shares any SNPs with VK327 or the other two modern kits downstream of I-Y8334.

altvred
04-05-2021, 02:13 PM
I had a closer look using IGV - picks up some of the SNPs that the cladefinder didn't - some of these are one-read, so perhaps not surprising. Also looked at some of the branches in that genetic neighborhood that are on FTDNA but not YFull - although still negative for all known downstream branches.

Derived SNPs: Y8335 / A1818 (2A), Y8844 / BY462 (4A), Y14669 (1A), A1830 / Y14670 (6A), Y8334 / BY463 (3A), BY466 / Z44259 (2A), Y8845 / BY467 (2A), A1841 / Y28952 (3T), A2083 / Y28953 (1G), BY464 / Y8336 (1T), BY465 / Y8337 (7G), A18766 (5A).

Ancestral SNPs: A7322 (4G), FT124056 (4C), Y185625 (3G), A4637 (1T), A4636 (5C), FT166204 (4C), PH4523 (3G), PH4462 (2A, 1C), A1821 (4G), A1822 (2A), BY31745 (5G), A7320 (8G), A7323 (5T), FT123289 (3G), FT123669 (1C), FT135172 (1A), FT91008 (2C), PH4341 (4G), A19967 (3G), A19973 (2G), A19976 (2C), A19977 (1C), FT198737 (3T), BY67591 (5G, 1A), FT199038 (4A), FT199374 (3C), FT358549 (1C).

Ambiguous SNPs: FT115464 (3C, 2T), CTS12998 (1C, 1T).

No Call SNPs: Y8333 / BY461, Y185865, Y8846 / BY468, A18803, CTS10169, A7327, FT197560, FT198614, FT358494, FGC74283 / Y135134.

I've sent an email to YFull to ask if they'll consider adding this one. Should have decent enough coverage. Would be interesting if HGH-1600 shares any SNPs with VK327 or the other two modern kits downstream of I-Y8334.

If I recall correctly VK327 was from southwest Jutland, so Lubeck is right over the corner.

I got the Y-haplogroup of another individual from that burial, HGH1429, this one is R1b not I1 but the distribution of that subclade appears to be that North Sea area.

https://i.imgur.com/vqNv2Zj.png

JMcB
04-05-2021, 02:24 PM
If I recall correctly VK327 was from southwest Jutland, so Lubeck is right over the corner.

I got the Y-haplogroup of another individual from that burial, HGH1429, this one is R1b not I1 but the distribution of that subclade appears to be that North Sea area.

https://i.imgur.com/vqNv2Zj.png


Not surprisingly, a U106 sample. You might want to pass that on to Bollox79. Who likes to keep track of any new U106 finds.

Here’s a thread he started, where you might be able to find him:

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?13823-More-U106-found-in-Bavarian-medieval-samples&p=368164&viewfull=1#post368164

deadly77
04-05-2021, 06:09 PM
Yes, VK327 is from Ribe, Jutland. I've plotted the ancient I1 samples that I'm aware of into Google Maps (including the most recent one you discovered) - link in my signature.

Strider99
06-13-2021, 08:41 AM
While not perhaps super interesting, I thought I would mention this. A while back in January in these posts https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?13783-Ancient-I-M253-samples-list&p=726990&viewfull=1#post726990
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?13783-Ancient-I-M253-samples-list&p=740368&viewfull=1#post740368

I talked about a few samples from farmers and foragers in Germany that were included in a dissertation by Jens Blöcher who works for the Palaeogenetics Group at Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz. This one:
https://openscience.ub.uni-mainz.de/handle/20.500.12030/3114
https://d-nb.info/1209245647/34

I sent him an email asking for the Y-DNA haplogroups of the individuals, which had not been included in the thesis. At the time, I felt that some Middle Neolithic cultures in Germany would be an appropriate place to look for I-M253 since that's a setting where you have HG-rich farming groups persisting for quite a long time. Sadly I sent this email from my old university email and we were given new ones right after that so I was no longer checking the inbox of my old one.

I went ahead and checked the inbox of my old account a few days ago and noticed that Mr Blöcher had kindly responded, here is what he wrote:

"sorry for the late reply. Attached is the list of Y-Hgs for the Blaetterhoehle Samples. The coverage is varying between the samples and, in addition, not all of the Y-chromosome was covered in our capture array. Therefore the resolution is not the greatest. Haplogroups were determined with yhaplo (https://github.com/23andMe/yhaplo), after calling all sites on the Y-chromosme with atlas, by picking the majority base, while ignoring the first and last two bases of each read."

He attached this spreadsheet with the Y-DNA in it:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/13OIs_NOX7fYA4Q4xXQU5M0swyNBkuGcx/edit#gid=1869853142

Google Drive will probably make you send a request to Jens for access to it so I took a screenshot just in case:
45147


Haplogroups of these Blätterhöhle people, the 11 samples ranged in age between 8652-3020 BC (page 10):

Bla10: R-M343 (R1b)
Bla15: T-CTS2611 (T1a1a)
Bla17: R-M343 (R1b)
Bla1: R-P224 (R)
Bla28: P-P337 (P1)
Bla45: I-P37.2 (I2a1)
Bla59: R-M343 (R1b)
Bla75: H-M2945 (H)

Perhaps unsurprising, no I1 among them. The search for the needle in the haystack continues. Maybe it's time to look north again. I'm starting to wonder what would be found if they were to test late Pitted Ware skeletons from the mainland instead of just from Gotland, where all the current PWC Y-DNA is from. Oh well, time will tell. The Blätterhöhle samples were still worth having a look at in my opinion. In hindsight, I should probably have asked for Y-DNA from the samples from Kleinhadersdorf and Asparn-Schletz too. Just thought I'd report back on this.

deadly77
06-13-2021, 09:03 AM
Excellent following up Strider99.

JMcB
06-13-2021, 03:12 PM
Nice work Strider99!

For those who aren’t following the Y700 thread this may be of interest:

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?16412-Big-Y-700&p=777949&viewfull=1#post777949

Strider99
06-13-2021, 07:28 PM
That's a lot of R hg so early in Germany.

Indeed. But then again, we already knew that there was some R1b in Baalberge as well as one R in Middle Neolithic Quedlinburg. I guess most, if not all of these subclades would have been replaced by later steppe lineages. Lipson (2017) also had a look at sample Bla28 and gave it a slightly deeper assignment than just P1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5973800/

deadly77
06-24-2021, 04:26 PM
Interesting - it looks like YFull are analyzing SF11. I wouldn't have though the quality was good enough, but perhaps they are planning to use the SNPs he is negative for to break up the big I1 phylogenetic block. Need to click on the "live" view - doesn't appear on classic view.
45269