PDA

View Full Version : Early U106: A Hypothesis



Wing Genealogist
08-24-2019, 06:44 PM
A lively discussion has started to develop over the origins of U106 on this forum, and I have decided to create a separate topic devoted to this subject. At the same time, I will add in my own hypothesis.

First of all, I will use Iain McDonald's age analysis (based on the old Build37 Big Y and Y Elite results) at: http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~mcdonald/genetics/table.html. Even this somewhat dated analysis is comprised of many more U106+ samples than YFull has to date, and when it comes to age analysis, size does matter. McDonald dates the origin of U106 itself to 3022 BC with a 95% Confidence Interval between 3699 BC — 2465 BC.

The two earliest U106+ remains to date (RISE98 & I7196) are dated to roughly 2300BC - 2000 BC, which is likely several hundred years after U106's origins. We are missing data from the critical genesis period of U106's development. As such, we cannot even make a valid educated guess about the origins of U106 itself.

While we don't have any information on the earliest days of U106, I believe the Ancient/Medieval/Royal U106+ results published to date https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rpJP0Bt4qUQb9wWBFA7i1tLPV75ie_qS0iplwvvlVmQ/edit#gid=1743270299 gives us enough information to hypothesize about some of the subclades of U106.

What stands out most to me is how one subclade, Z156, is predominantly found in central Europe, while the other subclades (Z301, Z18 and U106+/Z381-/Z18-) are predominantly found in Scandinavia. Z301 and Z156 are the two major claces of Z381 while both Z381 and Z18 are direct subclades of BY30097. The estimated dates of origin (95% CI) are:

Z381 2964 BC (3589 BC — 2432 BC)
Z301 2752 BC (3362 BC — 2211 BC)
Z156 2864 BC (3470 BC — 2324 BC)

Z18 2380 BC (3079 BC — 1773 BC)

These dates of origin for Z381 and its two main subclades are not all that far removed from the age of U106 itself, while Z18 is considerably younger than the rest.

The separation between Z156 and the rest of U106 can be seen even in the very earliest U106+ remains discovered to date. RISE98 is U106+/Z381-/Z18- and is found in Scandinavia, while I7196 is Z156+ and is found near what is now Prague, Czech Republic.

I have plotted the U106+ remains on a Community Walk map http://www.communitywalk.com/map/index/2236108 and made some attempt to color-code the SNP results (I am partially color blind, so it is a challenge). I have made Z156 and its two major subclades (DF98 & DF96) various shades of blue. Of the 13 Z156+ results (which include DF96 & DF98) 3 are in England (the two Roman Gladiators in York and a Viking buried at Oxford University) with 1 found in Denmark and the another one in Sweden. The other 8 are found in Central Europe, spread between Spain (I10895) and Szolad, Hungary.

There are a scattering of Z381 & Z18 results found outside of Scandinavia, but it is clear where the bulk of these clades are found in Scandinavia (and England which could be explained by the Germanic and Viking settlements on the Island).

rms2
08-24-2019, 08:45 PM
The thing that stands out to me is that U106 is absent from Olalde et al's Kurgan Bell Beaker samples. In other words, AWOL from Central Europe, Britain, and Iberia during the Late Neolithic/Early Bronze Age. Yet RISE 98 turns up in Sweden circa 2300 BC, and Olalde et al did not sample the northeastern sphere of Kurgan Bell Beaker.

IMHO, U106, DF99, DF19, and L238 were probably all up in NE Kurgan Bell Beaker.

Then U106 turns up in Migration Period Germanics. Sorry that upsets those who want U106 to be Celtic, but that's the way it goes.

Wing Genealogist
08-24-2019, 09:42 PM
Except RISE 98 is supposed to have been RC dated, and I7196 is just dated based on estimates for Unetice.

Don't get ahead of yourself.

I7196 is dated from grave goods as well as other burial information (ie how body was laid, orientation to the sun & stars, etc.) and the researchers who discovered the remains stated they belonged to the older phases of the Unetice culture. Yes, it would be great if the remains were radiocarbon dated, but we simply have to go by the information we have been presented.

I am not saying I7196 is older than RISE98, but by the same token, we cannot say RISE98 is older simply because he was RC dated.

We know Z156 was found as far south as Prague by c2000 BC, but the remains themselves cannot say whether Z156 was a fairly recent arrival, or whether his Y-DNA line was there for centuries. The fact Z156 was not found in the major Bell Beaker paper by Olade does lend evidence where I7196 may have been a fairly recent arrival.

As you state, the vast majority of these results are from the Germanic Migration Period. Even during that period, there was a marked difference in the migration patterns of Z156 versus U106+/Z156-. Most of the Z156 migration was into central Europe, while most of the U106+/Z156- migration was into England and Iceland.

Wing Genealogist
08-24-2019, 09:42 PM
Duplicate posting

uintah106
08-24-2019, 10:29 PM
The thing that stands out to me is that U106 is absent from Olalde et al's Kurgan Bell Beaker samples. In other words, AWOL from Central Europe, Britain, and Iberia during the Late Neolithic/Early Bronze Age. Yet RISE 98 turns up in Sweden circa 2300 BC, and Olalde et al did not sample the northeastern sphere of Kurgan Bell Beaker.

IMHO, U106, DF99, DF19, and L238 were probably all up in NE Kurgan Bell Beaker.

Then U106 turns up in Migration Period Germanics. Sorry that upsets those who want U106 to be Celtic, but that's the way it goes. Unetice isn't Celtic. Those other haplogroups haven't been found in Unetice.R U106 has been found in Unetice,Z381 its majority branch.

alan
08-24-2019, 11:52 PM
it looks to me that U106 was east of the Elbe and probably east of the Oder until the latest part of the beaker period. It seems to have not had access to the Elbe, Danube, and north Sea until the end of the beaker era. Then afterwards it seems to have access to them all though it was apparently stopped at the Rhine. As U106 is a close cousin of P312, I tend to think P312 did exactly the same thing as U106 but 3-400 years earlier - it was excluded from the main central CW 'classic' R1a network of Germany, Denmark, Holland etc, probably because it was denied access to the Elbe, Danube and north Sea. Then c. 2550BC it broke through into that exclusion zone - with accessing the Elbe perhaps the key. So if you rewind back before 2550BC, I suspect both U106 and P312 were somewhere east of the Oder. That also is a zone where aspects of the beaker burial rite are known among CW and CW related groups pre-2550BC. I have a hunch that area between the Oder and Elbe was a real battleground because it was effectively key to accessing Europe north of the Alps. If you couldnt get past it, its a long journey to get round Denmark to access the North Sea and its rivers or go the length of the Oder to the Moravian gate to reach the Danube.

So, IMO all L151 was bottled up east of the Oder somewhere c. 3000-2550BC and may have been able to use rivers to access the Baltic but not the North Sea. Regardless of it being an atypical burial, finding a U106 guy in later battle axe Sweden out of a sample of only 2 or 3 men suggests U106 had access to the Baltic. The L11xP312xU106 guy found in a non-beaker burial in Csepel surely could only have got there by using the Oder and Moravian gates to the Danube. IMO he and the Swedish guy tend to point to U106 on the Oder c. 2200-2300BC, parallel to the final part of the bell beaker culture in central Europe. It may have been in that area earlier but it should be remembered that, even with the earlier calculated dating of U106 and P312, they were still young at the start of CW shortly after 3000BC so they might not be easy to pick up in their first couple of centuries of existence. They would have only been small groups in the earliest phase of CW and that may be why the early wave of CW seems to be R1a rather than L151.

alan
08-24-2019, 11:53 PM
it looks to me that U106 was east of the Elbe and probably east of the Oder until the latest part of the beaker period. It seems to have not had access to the Elbe, Danube, and north Sea until the end of the beaker era. Then afterwards it seems to have access to them all though it was apparently stopped at the Rhine. As U106 is a close cousin of P312, I tend to think P312 did exactly the same thing as U106 but 3-400 years earlier - it was excluded from the main central CW 'classic' R1a network of Germany, Denmark, Holland etc, probably because it was denied access to the Elbe, Danube and north Sea. Then c. 2550BC it broke through into that exclusion zone - with accessing the Elbe perhaps the key. So if you rewind back before 2550BC, I suspect both U106 and P312 were somewhere east of the Oder. That also is a zone where aspects of the beaker burial rite are known among CW and CW related groups pre-2550BC. I have a hunch that area between the Oder and Elbe was a real battleground because it was effectively key to accessing Europe north of the Alps. If you couldnt get past it, its a long journey to get round Denmark to access the North Sea and its rivers or go the length of the Oder to the Moravian gate to reach the Danube.

So, IMO all L151 was bottled up east of the Oder somewhere c. 3000-2550BC and may have been able to use rivers to access the Baltic but not the North Sea. Regardless of it being an atypical burial, finding a U106 guy in later battle axe Sweden out of a sample of only 2 or 3 men suggests U106 had access to the Baltic. The L11xP312xU106 guy found in a non-beaker burial in Csepel surely could only have got there by using the Oder and Moravian gates to the Danube. IMO he and the Swedish guy tend to point to U106 on the Oder c. 2200-2300BC, parallel to the final part of the bell beaker culture in central Europe. It may have been in that area earlier but it should be remembered that, even with the earlier calculated dating of U106 and P312, they were still young at the start of CW shortly after 3000BC so they might not be easy to pick up in their first couple of centuries of existence. They would have only been small groups in the earliest phase of CW and that may be why the early wave of CW seems to be R1a rather than L151.

alan
08-25-2019, 12:05 AM
Unetice isn't Celtic. Those other haplogroups haven't been found in Unetice.R U106 has been found in Unetice,Z381 its majority branch.

Unetice wasnt a unitary phenomenon. The western Unetice group burial very like the bell beakers while the eastern group seemed to draw more on CW traditions. I think because the CW and bell beaker group look well genetically-ethnically defined we have been drawn into thinking this is true of all cultures. I think after 2000BC in central Europe the social networks became less clannish and more complex and material culture and innovation no longer had to be driven by migrations of a male lineage and the culture-genes-language correlation would have weakened. I think Unetice was like that - more of network than an ethnic grouping. A later parallel to that is the Hallstatt C culture where its strongly suspected the western group were Celtic but its likely the eastern groups were not. Same goes for Urnfield where its highly unlikely the entire spread was one ethnicity or language.

uintah106
08-25-2019, 12:18 AM
It still seems something shoved R1a into Norway during/after Battle axe culture.I think it was the entry of R1b into Scandinavia via Unetice Maybe NE beaker culture.

Generalissimo
08-25-2019, 12:38 AM
It still seems something shoved R1a into Norway during/after Battle axe culture.I think it was the entry of R1b into Scandinavia via Unetice Maybe NE beaker culture.

The movement of U106 was from Scandinavia to Unetice.

And U106 has nothing to do with any Beakers.

rms2
08-25-2019, 12:44 AM
Unetice isn't Celtic . . .

I never said it was, but those who want U106 to be Celtic have to get it out of Scandinavia and into Central Europe to begin with.

MitchellSince1893
08-25-2019, 02:04 AM
As they all have the same paternal ancestor; for U106, P312, and S1194 to end up in their respective areas, a logical starting point for all of them would be close to the lower Elbe River (Northern Germany).
1. U106 could easily island hop from Northern Germany across the Danish archipelago into Sweden where it ends up in 2300 BC Battle Axe Culture
2. No ancient samples yet, but 75% of SS194 is currently found in Germany, Netherlands, Denmark, and Sweden (FTDNA database)
3. P312 ends up in the Single Grave Culture and eventually in the Bell Beaker Culture.

Trelvern
08-25-2019, 04:22 AM
Unetice wasnt a unitary phenomenon. The western Unetice group burial very like the bell beakers while the eastern group seemed to draw more on CW traditions. I think because the CW and bell beaker group look well genetically-ethnically defined we have been drawn into thinking this is true of all cultures. I think after 2000BC in central Europe the social networks became less clannish and more complex and material culture and innovation no longer had to be driven by migrations of a male lineage and the culture-genes-language correlation would have weakened. I think Unetice was like that - more of network than an ethnic grouping. A later parallel to that is the Hallstatt C culture where its strongly suspected the western group were Celtic but its likely the eastern groups were not. Same goes for Urnfield where its highly unlikely the entire spread was one ethnicity or language.

you mean the western group of Unetice?
32686
So that map is wrong?

Finn
08-25-2019, 07:17 AM
The movement of U106 was from Scandinavia to Unetice.

And U106 has nothing to do with any Beakers.

@ Wing Thanks for creating this specific posting. It's sensible to look at the different subbranches.

Looking at the R1b U106 tree (https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/33570-New-phylogenetic-tree-of-R1b-U106-(and-Z381)) and additional information of Mac Donald (http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~mcdonald/genetics/u106-geography-2015-revised.pdf).

Of course because of the European turmoil this looks messy.

But one conclusion can be made.

Z18 an Z9 had clearly a Scandic 'origin'.

Z156, U198 and L47 are nearly absent in Scandinavia.


So it's unlikely that R1b U106 as a whole has a Scandic origin. It lacks mostly a lot of lines.

The Scandic movement of R1b U106 to Unetice is not noticeable (see the Czech, Hungarian, Austrian lines) simply different sublines. Not Scandic.Z18 is simply missing there (Rise98 and most nowadays Scandics belong to Z18).

This is a remarkable quote from Mc Donald about Germany;


Wherever its exact origin, U106 appears to have spread mainly from southern Germany.

So not a result of Germanic spread!?

As for a line of Z18 or Z9 the SGC theory could be real. But these lines are some fractions....

So for an origin we must look elsewhere....see the suggestions of Alan.

rms2
08-25-2019, 12:49 PM
Wherever its exact origin, U106 appears to have spread mainly from southern Germany.

That very nice report from Iain McDonald is from 2015, at least a couple of years before Olalde et al's "The Beaker Phenomenon". I wonder if McDonald still thinks U106 spread mainly from southern Germany, because there certainly is no ancient dna evidence to support that idea.

Finn
08-25-2019, 02:19 PM
That very nice report from Iain McDonald is from 2015, at least a couple of years before Olalde et al's "The Beaker Phenomenon". I wonder if McDonald still thinks U106 spread mainly from southern Germany, because there certainly is no ancient dna evidence to support that idea.

I guess that he meant that in Germany it seems like coming from the South cq South Germany not in general, problably based on the subclades.

rms2
08-25-2019, 02:49 PM
I guess that he meant that in Germany it seems like coming from the South cq South Germany not in general, problably based on the subclades.

The mention of it is deja vu to me, because I seem to recall you citing that McDonald report not too long ago. I think my response was pretty much the same, only now even more time has passed since 2015.

I respect McDonald, but I don't think modern y haplogroup distribution is very reliable as evidence of origin. Prior to about 2012, it was all we had and was pretty much the basis of all the voluminous arguments at the old dna forums.

IMHO U106 was in the northern province of Kurgan Bell Beaker. This is from p. 481 of Janusz Czebreszuk's article, “Bell Beakers from West to East”, in the book, Ancient Europe 8000 B.C. - A.D. 1000, edited by Peter Bogucki:


The Northern Province. This province includes Jutland in Denmark, then stretches through northern Germany to the lower Elbe, then across northern Poland to the lower Vistula basin.


I'm guessing U106, S1194, DF99, DF19, and L238 were all there because none of them turned up among Olalde et al's Beaker samples, and the northern province was the one Beaker zone that went pretty much unsampled. Add to that the discovery of RISE 98 in Sweden dated to around 2300 BC. Then U106 shows up in Unetice in Czechia where it apparently wasn't during the Beaker Period, which makes it look like it was up in the northern province and subsequently moved south.

I could be wrong, of course.

Wing Genealogist
08-25-2019, 03:12 PM
@ Finn
(Rise98 and most nowadays Scandics belong to Z18).

Rise98 does not belong to Z18. It belongs to the Z2265 clade (which encompasses virtually all of U106), but is negative for the BY30097 clade.

Well over 99% of U106 today falls under the BY30097. It is the parent clade of both Z381 and Z18 (as well as a handful of other smaller clades). There is currently only one known clade* which is BY30097- and three known subclades of Z2265 which are BY30097- (including the presumably extinct branch Rise98 falls into).

*This clade (A2150) has a couple of its own subclades, but each of these clades are only known from NGS/WGS testing of one or two individuals per clade.

Radboud
08-25-2019, 03:17 PM
That very nice report from Iain McDonald is from 2015, at least a couple of years before Olalde et al's "The Beaker Phenomenon". I wonder if McDonald still thinks U106 spread mainly from southern Germany, because there certainly is no ancient dna evidence to support that idea.

Yeah, that report is outdated as we pointed that out last year ( I don't know why Finn is still using this report), although his arguments were reasonable in 2015.

I took a look on the U106 Yahoo forum to see Iain McDonald's latest view about U106. I didn't quote his whole post, because this post was directed to a member:



R-M269 originated around 4400 BC in a region known as the Pontic-Caspian steppe. This large region of grassland existed north of the Black and Caspian Seas, and is now occupied by parts of Kazakhstan, Russia, the Ukraine and Belarus. We don't know exactly where or when this was. R-M269 is likely to be the source of Indo-European languages. Most people in western and central Europe are R-M269, but this decreases towards eastern Europe.

R-L23 originated around 4100 BC, still in the Pontic-Caspian steppe. Ancient DNA tells us that another branch of R-L23 (R-Z2103) were leaders of the Yamnaya culture - an ancient people who lived around the Samara River (a tributary of the Volga), from 3300 BC to 2600 BC. Our ancestors may have been part of the Yamnaya culture, or another nearby culture.

R-L51 originated around 3700 BC. We have little ancient evidence to describe it.

R-P310 is a newly-discovered clade. It probably formed around 3000 BC. We don't have enough information about it yet to establish its significance.

R-L11 probably represents our ancestors arrival in northern Europe. There is strong evidence from ancient DNA that they came over from the Pontic-Caspian steppe to northern Europe (the modern Netherlands / Denmark / Germany / Poland) with the Corded Ware culture (Schnurkeramik-kultur). This culture spread right across northern Europe between around 2850 BC and 2700 BC. Before this date, we have no R-M269 burials in Europe. After this date, most burials we find are R-L11. Our R-L11 ancestors effectively took over western Europe, replacing the native male population. Now, R-L11 represents roughly half of western and central Europe, but is most common in Atlantic countries, where it can reach up to 95% of the population in some places (e.g. Northern Ireland). The Corded Ware culture people were farmers, and the range of their territories and dates span the late Stone Age (Neolithic) through the Copper Age and early Bronze Age.

R-U106 represents the first major branching of our ancient European family, and is the common ancestor for people in our project. That common ancestor probably lived somewhere in north-central Europe around 2800 BC, give or take a century or two. R-U106 is common in Germanic countries, although many R-U106 branches have non-Germanic origins. R-U106 is the last level where major population-level studies have been carried out by professional geneticists, archaeologists and anthropologists. Beyond this, we have to rely on the information we have gathered in our group.

R-Z2265 and R-BY30097 are minor branching events that formed during in the first few centuries of the expansion of R-U106, probably in the Corded Ware Culture. R-Z381 is a larger branching event, but seems to have occurred in the same culture. Since most R-U106 people are R-Z381, we can't say much about differences in origin.

R-Z156 is a minor branch of R-U106, probably representing about 15-20% of its population today. Based on the Corded Ware culture model, it probably formed around 2500 BC +/- about 200 years. Georgaphically, it seems to be more common in the southern range of R-U106, more towards the origins of the Celtic people. R-Z156 is notable for housing several European royal families, including the House of Wettin (also R-DF98) and probably the House of Bourbon (R-Z381 and negative for its other major branches).

R-Z306 and R-Z304 are fairly minor branching events that share geographies with R-Z156.

R-DF98 represents roughly a third of R-Z156, about 5-7% of its population, and perhaps a few million men worldwide. We linked the DF98 mutation to this group back in 2013, and before that we called it the "Kings' Cluster", because one of the original testers was from the House of Wettin. This House includes the current royal families of Belgium and the UK, the last royal families of Bulgaria and Portugal, and the Saxon royal family. Since 2013, I have conducted research into this group, and I think I can now fairly claim to be the world authority on it. We're very lucky in R-DF98 to have a well-tested population and more ancient DNA than any other R-U106 branch. Geographically and historically, R-DF98 is common in a wide band, stretching from the British Isles, through France and the Low Countries, across southern and central Germany. That band probably continues eastwards into Austria, Hungary, Romania and the Ukraine, but we have fewer testers from these countries. It probably formed around 2200 BC +/- about 250 years.

R-S1894: there are probably fewer than a million R-S1894 men alive in the world today. Of the dead ones, one of the most interesting was dug up in Prague. He belonged to the Únětice culture (Aunjetitzer Kultur). He is clearly DF98+, but probably also S1911+ and S1894+. Based on his grave goods and genetic mutations, he probably lived close to 2000 BC. Hence it's probable that our ancestors moved to somewhere near the Czech Republic as early as 2500 BC (R-Z156) and stayed there throughout the time of the Únětice culture (until 1700 BC).



So McDonald holds the view that R1b-Z156 and other minor subclades migrated to Central Europe, while most U106 subclades like R1b-Z381 moved to the north (or were already there).

rms2
08-25-2019, 03:29 PM
Here's a map showing what Czebreszuk called Beaker's Northern Province.

32694

uintah106
08-25-2019, 04:20 PM
Here's a map showing what Czebreszuk called Beaker's Northern Province.

32694 So U106 does haves something to do with Beakers?

Finn
08-25-2019, 04:51 PM
Yeah, that report is outdated as we pointed that out last year ( I don't know why Finn is still using this report), although his arguments were reasonable in 2015.

I took a look on the U106 Yahoo forum to see Iain McDonald's latest view about U106. I didn't quote his whole post, because this post was directed to a member:



So McDonald holds the view that R1b-Z156 and other minor subclades migrated to Central Europe, while most U106 subclades like R1b-Z381 moved to the north (or were already there).

IMO not outdated (because I see no revisited descriptions) but it gives valuable adds, thanks.

The most important thing is that the Scandinavian lines only represent a fraction (mostly Z18,Z9) of the whole bunch of lines of R1b U106. And if this specific lines (Z18, Z9) were prior to the rest then ok....but that isn't the case. So I can't see no reason why Scandinavia is to be seen as the 'delivery room' of R1b U106. Many R1b U106 lines never came from Scandinavia and many lines never reached Scandinavia.

So of course R1b U106 stays a typical Germanic marker, but not an unique Germanic marker.

This can easily be illustrated with the quotes of Mc Donald.


R-U106 is common in Germanic countries, although many R-U106 branches have non-Germanic origins.


R-Z156 is a minor branch of R-U106, probably representing about 15-20% of its population today. Based on the Corded Ware culture model, it probably formed around 2500 BC +/- about 200 years. Georgaphically, it seems to be more common in the southern range of R-U106, more towards the origins of the Celtic people. @rms2 this is not my quote so don't blame me for mentioning the C...word ;)


Geographically and historically, R-DF98 is common in a wide band, stretching from the British Isles, through France and the Low Countries, across southern and central Germany. That band probably continues eastwards into Austria, Hungary, Romania and the Ukraine, but we have fewer testers from these countries.

No mentioning of Scandinavia, on the contrary, it shows that the history of R1b U106 is more diversified than may be previous thought....

mihaitzateo
08-25-2019, 05:28 PM
Switzerland got 23% R1B-U106 from their paternal lines.
Switzerland is known as a place where mostly Continental Celtic tribes dwelt.
Switzerland was also part of the Roman Empire.

Czech Republic got plenty of R1B, 29.4%, tbut I do not know what are the clades there, exactly.
I suppose a significant part of Czech Republic R1B is R1B-U106.

Tyrol does not have any R1B-U106, but has instead 20% R1B-U152.
So, the people that brought West Germanic language in Tyrol were not bearing R1B-U152.
Tyrol does have 20% I1A2 and 7% I2B and 13% R1A-Z280.

So I would not be so sure that all R1B-U106 was spread by West Germanic or Germanic speakers.
Who knows.
Things might be a lot more complex.
Some South Germany Celtic tribes, might have also carried R1B-U106 branches, because Bavaria also got 24% R1B-U106 and Lower Saxony got 29% R1B-U106.
But for the moment, the branches of R1B-U106 and how these are spread, geographically, is not known.

Wing Genealogist
08-25-2019, 05:39 PM
L48 is the "Big Brother" to Z156 as they are both direct subclades of Z381, with L48 being older and likely more common* than "Little Brother" Z156. L48 includes (as subclades) L47 and Z9 and Z9 includes (as subclades) Z326 and Z8.

While some L48 (and its subclades) are found in central Europe, overall, it is much more commonly found in Scandinavia (and England).


*Currently the U106 Y-DNA Project at FTDNA is showing roughly half of the folks in the project falling under L48, and Z156 is only about 15% of the Project. As with most DNA projects, membership is heavily skewed towards folks with ancestry from the British Isles and is especially under-reported for the central European regions. The fact Ancient/Medieval DNA results shows Z156 as being more of a Southerly clade of U106 we do expect Z156 to comprise a higher proportion of U106 than what is currently reported in the Project.

GoldenHind
08-25-2019, 06:06 PM
Ever since the days of the old DNA Forum, I have been arguing that the tendency to treat U106 as monolithic and ignore any differences between its subclades was likely masking a great deal of important information. Although I believe some attempt was made to investigate the Z156 subclade, this is the first effort I am aware of to analyze the primary U106 subclades. As I have long suspected, like P312 subclades, they are not all identical.

So congratulations on your efforts, which in my opinion are long overdue.

Scat
08-25-2019, 08:20 PM
R-Z306 and R-Z304 are fairly minor branching events that share geographies with R-Z156.

R-DF98 represents roughly a third of R-Z156, about 5-7% of its population, and perhaps a few million men worldwide.


I think most of the Uzbek l11 belong to the z304. Therefore, approximately 200 thousand Uzbek men are added as hidden reserves. There are also among the Tatars and Kazakhs.

Scat
08-25-2019, 08:27 PM
That band probably continues eastwards into Austria, Hungary, Romania and the Ukraine, but we have fewer testers from these countries
That's right. And more deeply east into Volga region and Central asia

alan
08-25-2019, 08:48 PM
The mention of it is deja vu to me, because I seem to recall you citing that McDonald report not too long ago. I think my response was pretty much the same, only now even more time has passed since 2015.

I respect McDonald, but I don't think modern y haplogroup distribution is very reliable as evidence of origin. Prior to about 2012, it was all we had and was pretty much the basis of all the voluminous arguments at the old dna forums.

IMHO U106 was in the northern province of Kurgan Bell Beaker. This is from p. 481 of Janusz Czebreszuk's article, “Bell Beakers from West to East”, in the book, Ancient Europe 8000 B.C. - A.D. 1000, edited by Peter Bogucki:



I'm guessing U106, S1194, DF99, DF19, and L238 were all there because none of them turned up among Olalde et al's Beaker samples, and the northern province was the one Beaker zone that went pretty much unsampled. Add to that the discovery of RISE 98 in Sweden dated to around 2300 BC. Then U106 shows up in Unetice in Czechia where it apparently wasn't during the Beaker Period, which makes it look like it was up in the northern province and subsequently moved south.

I could be wrong, of course.

Definitely a possibility. Only issue I see with it is that the Danish beakers are seen as having most in common with Lower Rhine beakers and Polish beakers more in common with Moravian beakers. That would seem more likely to me to point to P312. I would still tend to think U106 was excluded from the beaker network until the very latest stages. I do agree that the easiest way to Sweden is via Denmark and the Danish Islands but a crossing direct across the Baltic from the south Baltic area also seems possible. Its possible that the U106 Swede was a captive or some other form of outsider in the battle axe culture given his unusual burial but im not sure that needs to point to him being from beaker culture. However, to find a U106 guy in a sample of just 2 or 3 Swedish battle axe culture must either indicate many more or just a complete fluke. That of course is the problem with tiny samples. One thing I learned from reading up on CW in northern Poland and to a lesser extent the Baltic states is that they were involved in multi-directional contacts including Sweden and also contacts to the east.

They really needed a bigger sample to avoid the danger of unrepresentative flukes distorting the picture. I dont think we will know till they test another handful or more Swedish battle axe people successfully for yDNA. Oh and some Danish beaker people! I really hope they are planning some testing/more testing of those areas.

MitchellSince1893
08-25-2019, 09:17 PM
The mention of it is deja vu to me, because I seem to recall you citing that McDonald report not too long ago. I think my response was pretty much the same, only now even more time has passed since 2015.

I respect McDonald, but I don't think modern y haplogroup distribution is very reliable as evidence of origin. Prior to about 2012, it was all we had and was pretty much the basis of all the voluminous arguments at the old dna forums.

IMHO U106 was in the northern province of Kurgan Bell Beaker. This is from p. 481 of Janusz Czebreszuk's article, “Bell Beakers from West to East”, in the book, Ancient Europe 8000 B.C. - A.D. 1000, edited by Peter Bogucki:



I'm guessing U106, S1194, DF99, DF19, and L238 were all there because none of them turned up among Olalde et al's Beaker samples, and the northern province was the one Beaker zone that went pretty much unsampled. Add to that the discovery of RISE 98 in Sweden dated to around 2300 BC. Then U106 shows up in Unetice in Czechia where it apparently wasn't during the Beaker Period, which makes it look like it was up in the northern province and subsequently moved south.

I could be wrong, of course.

This "Northern Province" makes since to me based on what I posted above. Not too hard to get from L11 in the Northern Province to some U106 in Sweden, P312 in the Netherlands/SCG, and S1194 pretty much staying put in the general vicinity...an obvious simplification based on the available evidence.

JonikW
08-25-2019, 10:16 PM
Definitely a possibility. Only issue I see with it is that the Danish beakers are seen as having most in common with Lower Rhine beakers and Polish beakers more in common with Moravian beakers. That would seem more likely to me to point to P312. I would still tend to think U106 was excluded from the beaker network until the very latest stages. I do agree that the easiest way to Sweden is via Denmark and the Danish Islands but a crossing direct across the Baltic from the south Baltic area also seems possible. Its possible that the U106 Swede was a captive or some other form of outsider in the battle axe culture given his unusual burial but im not sure that needs to point to him being from beaker culture. However, to find a U106 guy in a sample of just 2 or 3 Swedish battle axe culture must either indicate many more or just a complete fluke. That of course is the problem with tiny samples. One thing I learned from reading up on CW in northern Poland and to a lesser extent the Baltic states is that they were involved in multi-directional contacts including Sweden and also contacts to the east.

They really needed a bigger sample to avoid the danger of unrepresentative flukes distorting the picture. I dont think we will know till they test another handful or more Swedish battle axe people successfully for yDNA. Oh and some Danish beaker people! I really hope they are planning some testing/more testing of those areas.

Me too. The only way we can get a true picture is obviously through more samples, as I'm sure we all agree. Can I just check because of a pivotal part of this discussion: does RISE 98 have enough of the right SNPs to be close to 100% sure he was U106? On another recent thread here some putative early 106ers were rightly discounted based on the number of derived SNPs in the files. I assume RISE 98 is unambiguous but I don't remember.

Wing Genealogist
08-25-2019, 10:32 PM
[SNIP] does RISE 98 have enough of the right SNPs to be close to 100% sure he was U106? On another recent thread here some putative early 106ers were rightly discounted based on the number of derived SNPs in the files. I assume RISE 98 is unambiguous but I don't remember.

IIRC RISE 98 was of very high quality (for Ancient DNA remains) and was able to be called for some subclades of U106 as well as U106 itself. We are confident he is U106 and even confident where he falls below U106.

JonikW
08-25-2019, 11:03 PM
IIRC RISE 98 was of very high quality (for Ancient DNA remains) and was able to be called for some subclades of U106 as well as U106 itself. We are confident he is U106 and even confident where he falls below U106.

Thanks. Where does he fall?

Ralex004
08-25-2019, 11:33 PM
Fascinating. So the origin of R1b-U106 could very well be in Sweden, and not along the Wadden Sea and Northern Germany, but we're not sure... Have there been any findings for L48 and its subclades?

Wing Genealogist
08-26-2019, 01:25 AM
Thanks. Where does he fall?

RISE98 U106>Z2265>FGC36477 (BY30097-). Over 99% of U106 is BY30097+, so RISE98 is an early outlier. We believe his clade is extinct (as the vast majority of clades from this period are extinct).

Wing Genealogist
08-26-2019, 01:28 AM
Fascinating. So the origin of R1b-U106 could very well be in Sweden, and not along the Wadden Sea and Northern Germany, but we're not sure... Have there been any findings for L48 and its subclades?

If you look on the map at: http://www.communitywalk.com/map/index/2236108 you can choose which clade bubbles show up. Just remember that L48 includes L47, Z9, Z326 & Z8. To date, we have mapped 22 L48 and subclade samples.


I personally do not feel we have enough ancient DNA remains to make an educated guess about the origins of any of these clades yet. Alan had previously https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?18146-Early-U106-A-Hypothesis&p=594484&viewfull=1#post594484 given good reasoning for the idea U106 originated to the East and only later migrated west.

MitchellSince1893
08-26-2019, 01:51 AM
If U106 originated in Sweden, then the implication is U106's father was also in Sweden. U106, P312, and S1194 all go back to the same L151, L11, PF6543 ancestor.

Couple of possibilities:
-L151,L11,PF6543 had sons/grandsons/great grandsons etc. born in/near Germany that eventually result in the creation of the U106, P312, S1194 SNPs. U106 or one of his descendants/subclades moves to Sweden

-L151,L11,PF6543 had sons/grandsons/great grandsons etc. born in Sweden that eventually result in the creation of the U106, P312, S1194 SNPs. The P312 and S1194 lines and some U106 subclades leave Sweden for Germany

alan
08-26-2019, 10:58 PM
An 'out of Sweden' theory sounds a bit crazy although its bizarre that Swedish battle axe people used the exact beaker rite (other than choice of portable goods) for 300 years before any beaker or other CW group appear to have used it. Then it seems to suddenly appear in both beaker and some eastern CW groups c. 2500BC or a little earlier. The farmer substrate in beaker has been described as being like Swedish TRB or GAC too! It still feels too weird to even argue a long shot like that without feeling like i've been possessed by Erich Von Daniken - but maybe im being too conventional LOL :o)

Maybe a less controversial explanation is that Sweden religiously influenced the CW in north-central Poland (maybe crossing the Baltic to Swedish ritual sites was like a pilgrimage just as seems to have been the case at Orkney in the Neolithic Stonehenge in the beaker era) and in that way it spread down the Oder and Oder-Vistula inter-fluve to CW groups further south too. Perhaps beaker was formed by a Polish CW group using the Swedish style rite that reached Germany c. 2550BC and formed the beaker culture there. Admittedly there are gaps in joining the dots. There are late Polish CW groups who do use the Swedish/bell beaker burial rules but they are a little late to rule out it simply being beaker influence or early enough to actually be the origin of beaker.

dsm
08-26-2019, 11:03 PM
IMHO, This is a very useful and interesting thread and the inputs thus far appear dominantly thoughtful.

One parallel aspect of the original date period for U106 is the question, what trade was going on in the South Baltic Region (including Jutland, East Denmark, Sth Sweden, Gotland, Öland, plus what became Pomerania (Nth Germany & Nth Poland) and the Baltic states coastal area.

Amber was originally one of the most important commodities and during the bronze age and into the iron age, became a form of currency used for purchasing metals from other regions. Evidence for just how important trade was in the region, is underscored by the extent of the Tollense Battle (est 1300-1200 BCE or 3300-3200 BP) fought in the Pomerania region near Wolin Island Sth Baltic and regarded as the best-preserved ancient battlefield in the world. The emerging evidence is that this area was on a well-established trade route than had been there for 100s of years before the battle, maybe, up to 2000 years before the battle as there is evidence of Baltic Amber trade going back that far). That, in turn, tells us that people from many other places would have heard about the area and had incentives to go there either to trade or to 'make their fortune'. Amber was found all along the Sth Baltic coast and up the coast of the Baltic states.

What we really need from Tollense, is detailed DNA evidence as to who was there and a better makeup of the two groups in conflict. Current data is just too sparse.

Below is a link to a reasonable well-formulated description of the battle site. One would reasonably assume that U106, in particular, had to feature in this battle. If not then why not ?.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--yUuR_F_wU&t=29s&fbclid=IwAR2I8nFLbBYvCfklXyvskdCr9kNGiPAteHUoai1Qv kbLuSvGUF-z3-9bkaI

For my own part as an S1194 descendant, am convinced (as of today) that U106 and S1194 (and even the 4th brother clade A8053) were all alongside each other in the Sth Baltic / Scandinavian region. However, the current DNA evidence shows clearly U106 had a bigger reach than S1194 ever did. Interestingly, while S1194 and U106 show up in the same places in Europe, S1194 origins in UK tend to be away from areas of known U106 density. In UK U106 is densest on the east coast of England (attributed to migrations of Jutes, Angles, Saxons & Frisians) & this density declines markedly across to the west side of England. On the other hand. S1194 tends to show up (places of origin) in the south (border with Cornwall), the west (border with Wales) & the north (border with Scotland), or over the border into the Scottish lowlands. Those areas are right away from the traditionally densest U106 areas. That is an interesting contrast to what we see of U106 & S1194 in the countries over the channel & the north sea from England.

I guess my point here is to make a case that U106 and S1194 have a strong affinity that I am not seeing between P312 & S1194.

What are others's views on which son of L11 (L151) came 1st ? - was it U106 (I think Iain McDonald has suggested it could be), was it P312 (just based on the massive numbers today), it would seem not to be S1194 or A8053.

Interesting !.

dsm
08-26-2019, 11:20 PM
This recent paper 'The road to Scandinavia's bronze age: Trade routes, metal provenance, and mixing' (with an extract) highlights the activity in the Nth German/Poland/Scandinavian region. It is relevant as it would have played a role in the evolution of U106 in these areas. It may not suggest the actual origin but surely tells us why people would be drawn to the region and develop their clans.

Note that the Tollense battle site & route fits perfectly with the evidence for a trade port either in or near Wolin, perhaps Stralsund just close by, perhaps both. Wolin had a naturally protected harbour that was very easy to defend.

EXTRACT :- "The results of these analyses reveal the trading networks established to import raw metals as well as crafted weapons into Scandinavia via two major maritime trade routes: one leading down across the Baltic Sea towards the Únĕtice (a Bronze Age civilization in what is now eastern Germany and Bohemia), and another leading to the British Isles."


The road to Scandinavia's bronze age: Trade routes, metal provenance, and mixing
https://phys.org/news/2019-07-road-scandinavia-bronze-age-routes.html?fbclid=IwAR1uNh3jquknrNRfk26daVLtNQfxE R12sh60z290h3RuclHWg-UnUO-wjEs

A link to Wolin:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolin

A Link to Stralsund:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stralsund

5000 years of Baltic Amber trade
https://www.thoughtco.com/baltic-amber-fossilized-resin-170071

JonikW
08-26-2019, 11:50 PM
IMHO, This is a very useful and interesting thread and the inputs thus far appear dominantly thoughtful.

One parallel aspect of the original date period for U106 is the question, what trade was going on in the South Baltic Region (including Jutland, East Denmark, Sth Sweden, Gotland, Öland, plus what became Pomerania (Nth Germany & Nth Poland) and the Baltic states coastal area.

Amber was originally one of the most important commodities and during the bronze age and into the iron age, became a form of currency used for purchasing metals from other regions. Evidence for just how important trade was in the region, is underscored by the extent of the Tollense Battle (est 1300-1200 BCE or 3300-3200 BP) fought in the Pomerania region near Wolin Island Sth Baltic and regarded as the best-preserved ancient battlefield in the world. The emerging evidence is that this area was on a well-established trade route than had been there for 100s of years before the battle, maybe, up to 2000 years before the battle as there is evidence of Baltic Amber trade going back that far). That, in turn, tells us that people from many other places would have heard about the area and had incentives to go there either to trade or to 'make their fortune'. Amber was found all along the Sth Baltic coast and up the coast of the Baltic states.

What we really need from Tollense, is detailed DNA evidence as to who was there and a better makeup of the two groups in conflict. Current data is just too sparse.

Below is a link to a reasonable well-formulated description of the battle site. One would reasonably assume that U106, in particular, had to feature in this battle. If not then why not ?.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--yUuR_F_wU&t=29s&fbclid=IwAR2I8nFLbBYvCfklXyvskdCr9kNGiPAteHUoai1Qv kbLuSvGUF-z3-9bkaI

For my own part as an S1194 descendant, am convinced (as of today) that U106 and S1194 (and even the 4th brother clade A8053) were all alongside each other in the Sth Baltic / Scandinavian region. However, the current DNA evidence shows clearly U106 had a bigger reach than S1194 ever did. Interestingly, while S1194 and U106 show up in the same places in Europe, S1194 origins in UK tend to be away from areas of known U106 density. In UK U106 is densest on the east coast of England (attributed to migrations of Jutes, Angles, Saxons & Frisians) & this density declines markedly across to the west side of England. On the other hand. S1194 tends to show up (places of origin) in the south (border with Cornwall), the west (border with Wales) & the north (border with Scotland), or over the border into the Scottish lowlands. Those areas are right away from the traditionally densest U106 areas. That is an interesting contrast to what we see of U106 & S1194 in the countries over the channel & the north sea from England.

I guess my point here is to make a case that U106 and S1194 have a strong affinity that I am not seeing between P312 & S1194.

What are others's views on which son of L11 (L151) came 1st ? - was it U106 (I think Ian McDonald has suggested it could be), was it P312 (just based on the massive numbers today), it would seem not to be S1194 or A8053.

Interesting !.

Thanks for an interesting post. When you say "One would reasonably assume that U106, in particular, had to feature in this battle. If not then why not ?." I wonder about I1 and the relative haplogroup weightings in the recent Viking paper. Is that because you expect I1 would be less well represented a little outside Scandinavia than U106 at that time? If so I'd probably agree.

dsm
08-27-2019, 12:18 AM
Re U106 at Tollense, my thoughts are surely U106 was there, but were they on one side or the other or both ? - but I guess that while we should find U106 DNA there, we may not be able to work out what side.

Because of the proximity to Sweden, and the area being a trade route, plus the well-established age of I+, I expect I1 DNA to be there. but I can't guess in what proportions.

I had always hoped that S1194 may show up as well but, that seems a long shot based on S1194 %s in the area today. N. Myres et al, in their 2010-2011 paper indicated that L11* (what they called us S1194 & A8053 folk before they knew of our deeper SNPs) were claimed to be a notable % (as high as 10%) in the Sth Baltic region. But, the source of their data was such that 10% is more speculative than likely. Elsewhere S1194 tends to be 0.5% up to 1% or less of local populations.

Auto DNA from the Tollense site points to Germany & Poland & particularly Únětice culture people.

One day we hopefully will get better data.

dsm
08-27-2019, 12:19 AM
Duplicated

JonikW
08-27-2019, 12:38 AM
Re U106 at Tollense, my thoughts are surely U106 was there, but were they on one side or the other or both ? - but I guess that while we should find U106 DNA there, we may not be able to work out what side.

Because of the proximity to Sweden, and the area being a trade route, plus the well-established age of I+, I expect I1 DNA to be there. but I can't guess in what proportions.

I had always hoped that S1194 may show up as well but, that seems a long shot based on S1194 %s in the area today. N. Myres et al, in their 2010-2011 paper indicated that L11* (what they called us S1194 & A8053 folk before they knew of our deeper SNPs) were claimed to be a notable % (as high as 10%) in the Sth Baltic region. But, the source of their data was such that 10% is more speculative than likely. Elsewhere S1194 tends to be 1% or less of local populations.

Auto DNA from the Tollense site points to Germany & Poland & particularly Únětice culture people.

One day we hopefully will get better data.

You've intrigued me about S1194 but I can't find it on YFull to see the origin of testers. Can you help?

dsm
08-27-2019, 01:12 AM
YFull seems to have a blind spot regarding S1194, they prefer to reference S1200 as if S1194 doesn't exist. The accurate sources for S1194's position include the BigY tree and even ISOGG (the most conservative Y-Tree there is). If ISOGG can get it right we should expect YFull to be able to as well. The original R1b Basal Subclades tree also accurately reflected the position of S1194 above S1200 until that project removed all links to their work (citing new security).

Below are grabs from the current BigY tree and the ISOGG R1b tree. I have also included an old grab of the R1b Basal sub-clades tree from before they pulled it.


A grab of the BigY version (note S1200 is an alternate name for CTS4528. CTS4528 is a child of S1194 as is S1200).
32741

And here is the ISOGG version as of today (note position of CTS4528 and S1200) ...
32742

Here too is a grab from 2017 of the R1b Basal Subclades tree before they hid it.
32743

And, the incorrect YFull tree (as at 26 Aug 2019) ...
32744
What is wrong is that they exclude S1194 altogether and erroneously position the child brother clades S1200 (aka CTS4528) & A8039 (children of S1194) alongside P312 & U106 when that is not right. The accurate details have been known for over 3 years and the ISOGG tree is best evidence.

Sadly, what does this say about YFull accuracy ?. I now am cautious about their data.

JonikW
08-27-2019, 01:44 AM
YFull seems to have a blind spot regarding S1194, they prefer to reference S1200 as if S1194 doesn't exist. The accurate sources for S1194's position include the BigY tree and even ISOGG (the most conservative Y-Tree there is). If ISOGG can get it right we should expect YFull to be able to as well. The original R1b Basal Subclades tree also accurately reflected the position of S1194 above S1200 until that project removed all links to their work (citing new security).

Below are grabs from the current BigY tree and the ISOGG R1b tree. I have also included an old grab of the R1b Basal sub-clades tree from before they pulled it.


A grab of the BigY version (note S1200 is an alternate name for CTS4528. CTS4528 is a child of S1194 as is S1200).
32741

And here is the ISOGG version as of today (note position of CTS4528 and S1200) ...
32742

Here too is a grab from 2017 of the R1b Basal Subclades tree before they hid it.
32743

And, the incorrect YFull tree ...
32744
What is wrong is that they exclude S1194 altogether and erroneously position the child brother clades S1200 & A8039 (children of S1194) alongside P312 & U106 when that is not right. The accurate details have been known for over 3 years and the ISOGG tree is best evidence.

S1200 looks interesting on YFull but with an unfortunately distant so perhaps somewhat uninformative TMRCA. With Armenia and Hungary near the top, it's a fascinating case... But CTS4528 on FTDNA looks most easily explained in Britain by the Anglo-Saxon movements. What are your views?

dsm
08-27-2019, 02:10 AM
You have nailed it in 1 :)

The Armenian who shows up with CTS4528 is actually a New Zealander who has an Armenian ancestry. His grandfather settled in Christchurch in the late 1800s.

Based on what is known of his DNA and Armenian R1b, the evidence I see for him is possibly a crusader lineage. It is well documented that a couple of hundred ships of Danish & Anglo-Saxon descendants left England in approx 1074 to flee the Normans who had been 'Harrying of the North' and they sailed eventually to Constantinople where the bulk of the men became part of the Varangian Guard. Prior to their arrival, the Varangian guard was dominated by Scandinavians many of them Kievian Rus (or Rhos). After the fall of Constantinople, the Christians who remained had good reason to join up with the Armenians.


A link re Varangians = http://www.soldiers-of-misfortune.com/history/varangian-guard.htm
EXTRACT:
"Nonetheless, warriors with a different origin began to arrive on the scene. After the Normans had conquered England in 1066, many of the established families preferred to seek their fortune in foreign lands. At first it seems that most of these exiles from England had Danish origins from the so-called Danelaw, and they subsequently followed the footsteps of their Danish cousins to Byzantium. But soon many Anglo-Saxons followed also, often making up the majority of the Guard. A chronicler at this point distinguishes between "Inglinoi", "Rhos" and "Vrangoi", ie between Anglo-Saxons, Russians and Scandinavians. "

********************

There seems to me to be a strong historical narrative that places S1194 in UK as part of the migration period & the Danish incursions & occupation between 1016 & 1018 when Canute (Knud) had finally secured England.

<EDIT> Interestingly, if S1194 had migrated to England with the Angles, Saxons & Frisians, I would expect to see S1194 distributed evenly among them or perhaps just one or the other but that is not the case. S1194 shows up all around the edge of the Anglo-Saxons-Frisians. i.e. In the border regions & Canute in 1018 send 3 groups of his warriors to defend each of those borders. that could explain why S1194 is not cleanly mixed with U106 in eastern England. If we assumed that there were indeed Danish S1194 warriors among the 3000 Canute kept in England and sent out to defend the three borders, then this offers a link as to why S1194 show mostly around the borders. Some S1194 do show in York (the heart of the Danish realm).

Link = https://biography.yourdictionary.com/canute-i-the-great

EXTRACT:
During 1018, Canute sent most of his Scandinavian host back to Denmark. With the remaining 3,000 men, he established an elite bodyguard, which became the core of his army, and stationed these soldiers at strategic points around the kingdom. The defense of the peace against both English offenders and Danish raiders rested upon this force. In the summer his brother Harald died without heirs. Then in October, Archbishop Wulfstan drafted a law code for Canute; it reinforced the idea that Canute was ruling as an English successor to the line of Alfred of Wessex, thus making his rule more palatable to his English subjects.

More info on Sweyn & Canute sending warriors to the 3 border regions (a border was known as a 'Mark' but later the word morphed into the Norman word 'March' / 'Marche'). http://www.cornwallheritagetrust.org/discover/cornwall-410-1066/

EXTRACT:
Cornwall and the south-west were not immune from the attacks of Vikings which caused some much fear and unrest in other areas of Britain throughout the C10th. In 981AD, according to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, the Vikings laid waste “Petroces stow” (probably Padstow) and sixteen years later in 997AD the Dartmoor town of Lydford, near the Cornish/Wessex border was completely destroyed by an angry mob of Danish Vikings led by the King of Denmark and Viking leader Sweyn Forkbeard. However, Cornwall was left alone in this new wave of attacks.

In 1013AD Sweyn annexed Wessex to his Viking empire, which included Denmark and Norway. He did not annex Cornwall, Wales and Scotland, but instead allowed the three “client nations” self government in return for an annual payment or “danegeld”. His successor, King Canute the Great, continued this arrangement until 1035AD.

a further extract from = https://biography.yourdictionary.com/canute-i-the-great

Quote: Confirming the existing system, Canute's first act as king was to divide the kingdom into four great earldoms. While Eric, Eadric, and Thorkil held the above-mentioned positions, Canute held Wessex for himself, developing a division of power and land that would later provide a base for resistance by other such nobles against future kings. In addition to this system, Canute established a series of lesser earldoms along the Scottish, Welsh, and Cornish marches to protect those regions from raiders.

dsm
08-27-2019, 03:27 AM
Getting back to U106 and a place of origin. Am reminded of Richard Rocca's chart here that suggests that U106 and P312 were well apart even from an early age. I am not sure if this chart is still current but it has always caught my attention.

32745

The link is here ...
https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1RGQV96ErhMg29ydPzWbW8DFfPdeE8v9C&ll=49.94185809129346%2C-1.2287218813476102&z=4&fbclid=IwAR2YqCPdBEjaxiweOIl8oMLL-46if0oDIHHfYT1XaYbp7KgLQE4RxvlsCFA

<EDIT> I just noticed that on closer inspection the below inclusion in U106 part of the chart, is actually shown as L11xP312xU106. I recall Richard making some correction comments about this aDNA find. At the time we wondered if this *might* be a S1194 find but, that seems unlikely. IIRC it was found at Csepel Island (the Island in the Danube on which Buda & Pest reside) and is believed to have been a horse trading post in that era.

32746

dsm
08-27-2019, 03:38 AM
duplicated

mihaitzateo
08-27-2019, 07:10 AM
Neamt county, from NE Romania, a mountainous place, got 7.5% R1B-U106.
However, Neamt in Romanian means German so most could be from German people that settled there.

http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/2013/01/y-dna-of-moldovans.html?m=1

dsm
08-27-2019, 08:24 AM
Neamt county, from NE Romania, a mountainous place, got 7.5% R1B-U106.
However, Neamt in Romanian means German so most could be from German people that settled there.

http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/2013/01/y-dna-of-moldovans.html?m=1

There is a strong body of data that supports you on this. It is similar to the people of Marche (pron Mark-ah) in Nth East Italy who identify with Germanic migrants (i.e. Lombards who in turn show up as mostly U106).

Marche (local pron Mark-ah)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marche

A key part of the Lombard area of Italy.

razyn
08-27-2019, 04:17 PM
This "Northern Province" makes sense to me based on what I posted above. Not too hard to get from L11 in the Northern Province to some U106 in Sweden, P312 in the Netherlands/SCG, and S1194 pretty much staying put in the general vicinity...an obvious simplification based on the available evidence.
It would make better sense if we didn't know the source of its map:

IMHO U106 was in the northern province of Kurgan Bell Beaker. This is from p. 481 of Janusz Czebreszuk's article, “Bell Beakers from West to East”,
...because to make this particular kind of sense of it [as distinguished from sorting pottery shards by the theoretical sequence of their dates], the Northern Province represents the western European hub of an ongoing, and much more general, movement from east to west. Furholt suggests that the deposited ceramics (Corded, Bell-shaped, with a protruding foot or whatever) may have had less cultural significance than the burial rite (individual, gender distinguished, on the side, in shallow pits, with ceremonial covering). So it's a provocative map, and may be a good reason to look more closely at the aDNA there -- where did it come from, where was it headed -- but I suspect it may illustrate something other than its author's topic. I haven't read the Czebreszuk paper, though -- just looked at its map, that rms2 posted here.

MitchellSince1893
08-27-2019, 04:24 PM
I didn’t read the post about the Northern Province too carefully as I thought it was in reference to Corded Ware rather than Bell Beaker. :doh:

razyn
08-27-2019, 04:32 PM
I don't disagree with the map. I think it might fit well with what Generalissimo sees in the autosomal components of the aDNA (that we have, so far). And also with your (Mitchellsince1893) map or schematic showing L21, DF27, U152 and U106 dispersing separately from that general area (and not from the Iron Gates, etc.). But it's really unfair to Czebreszuk for me to use the title of his chapter as a caption for that map, and then argue with it. I just don't currently have time to excavate and read it.

mihaitzateo
08-27-2019, 09:27 PM
I know that R1B-U106 is also found in Croatia,Serbia, Bosnia.
It was said it is there from mixing of the locals with Austrians,during Austro-Hungary.
However,in Tyrol there is no R1B-U106.
I thought in the past that R1B-U106 is associated with Hallstatt Celts, but in this case,it should not be absent from Tyrol.
R1B-U106 in Serbia,Bosnia,Croatia should have get there with the Slavic migration from 600 AD.
But how R1B-U106 got in Slavs, that is another question.

As it is written in the first post of this thread, R1B-U106 Z156+ is found near Prague.
So, some Early Slavs might have also carried R1B-U106.

https://daurentius.blogspot.com/2018/12/haplogroup-r1b-among-serbs.html
All R1B-U106 found in Serbia is Z381.
No idea how it got there.

rms2
08-27-2019, 11:44 PM
I don't disagree with the map. I think it might fit well with what Generalissimo sees in the autosomal components of the aDNA (that we have, so far). And also with your (Mitchellsince1893) map or schematic showing L21, DF27, U152 and U106 dispersing separately from that general area (and not from the Iron Gates, etc.). But it's really unfair to Czebreszuk for me to use the title of his chapter as a caption for that map, and then argue with it. I just don't currently have time to excavate and read it.

I wouldn't concern myself with that. Czebreszuk's article in that book is at least 15 years old and was not at all informed by ancient dna data. It's a useful article though and goes through several of the Bell Beaker models. At the time Czebreszuk wrote it, the Spanish Model was pretty much the consensus, thus the title.

Even Reich seems to think Bell Beaker as a set of ideas spread initially from west to east; but he knows the ancient dna, so he says there was little or no migration from the west.

I have my doubts that even BB ideas came from the west.

rms2
08-27-2019, 11:51 PM
So U106 does haves something to do with Beakers?

We don't know yet, but I'm thinking Kurgan Bell Beaker was a Corded Ware product, basically a subset of Corded Ware.

CW came first; KBB developed within CW. I tend to think the Dutch Model is right, but time will tell.

So, L51 (which I am using as a rubric for whichever of its clades were in existence and present) was part of Corded Ware, and Beaker grew out of whatever part of Corded Ware was heavily L51.

Revmac
08-28-2019, 05:26 AM
Duplicate

Revmac
08-28-2019, 02:35 PM
@ Finn

Rise98 does not belong to Z18. It belongs to the Z2265 clade (which encompasses virtually all of U106), but is negative for the BY30097 clade.

Well over 99% of U106 today falls under the BY30097. It is the parent clade of both Z381 and Z18 (as well as a handful of other smaller clades). There is currently only one known clade* which is BY30097- and three known subclades of Z2265 which are BY30097- (including the presumably extinct branch Rise98 falls into).

*This clade (A2150) has a couple of its own subclades, but each of these clades are only known from NGS/WGS testing of one or two individuals per clade.

This is what boggles my mind! My A2150 group is dated by Dr. McDonald to approximately 1800-1700 B.C.. Yet, the closest paternal relative I share with almost any other person in the world is the original U106 man himself—who was born some time before 3,000 B.C.? How?...Why? I guess statistical probability is the answer. But I can’t help but wonder how many other (as yet) unidentifiable U106+ subclades could have existed (or possibly still do) before my own.

Finn
08-28-2019, 06:52 PM
it looks to me that U106 was east of the Elbe and probably east of the Oder until the latest part of the beaker period. It seems to have not had access to the Elbe, Danube, and north Sea until the end of the beaker era. Then afterwards it seems to have access to them all though it was apparently stopped at the Rhine. As U106 is a close cousin of P312, I tend to think P312 did exactly the same thing as U106 but 3-400 years earlier - it was excluded from the main central CW 'classic' R1a network of Germany, Denmark, Holland etc, probably because it was denied access to the Elbe, Danube and north Sea. Then c. 2550BC it broke through into that exclusion zone - with accessing the Elbe perhaps the key. So if you rewind back before 2550BC, I suspect both U106 and P312 were somewhere east of the Oder. That also is a zone where aspects of the beaker burial rite are known among CW and CW related groups pre-2550BC. I have a hunch that area between the Oder and Elbe was a real battleground because it was effectively key to accessing Europe north of the Alps. If you couldnt get past it, its a long journey to get round Denmark to access the North Sea and its rivers or go the length of the Oder to the Moravian gate to reach the Danube.

So, IMO all L151 was bottled up east of the Oder somewhere c. 3000-2550BC and may have been able to use rivers to access the Baltic but not the North Sea. Regardless of it being an atypical burial, finding a U106 guy in later battle axe Sweden out of a sample of only 2 or 3 men suggests U106 had access to the Baltic. The L11xP312xU106 guy found in a non-beaker burial in Csepel surely could only have got there by using the Oder and Moravian gates to the Danube. IMO he and the Swedish guy tend to point to U106 on the Oder c. 2200-2300BC, parallel to the final part of the bell beaker culture in central Europe. It may have been in that area earlier but it should be remembered that, even with the earlier calculated dating of U106 and P312, they were still young at the start of CW shortly after 3000BC so they might not be easy to pick up in their first couple of centuries of existence. They would have only been small groups in the earliest phase of CW and that may be why the early wave of CW seems to be R1a rather than L151.

Indeed and also follow the amber? Unetice hotspots around the Oder, with spread to Scania and West-Friesland. A possibility?
https://www.mupload.nl/img/huhic8.33.28.png

dsm
08-28-2019, 10:01 PM
This post is adding to the comments re what was going on in the world around the time R1b-U106 began expanding.

Perhaps the most significant (and likely relevant) event in the BA era, was the collapse of the BA in the Mediterranean. This is said to have happened around 1200 BCE. And interestingly this is is a few years before the massive battle at Tollense (Sth Baltic).

It is well documented that Amber trade between the Baltic and Mediterranean was well established in 1200 BCE. But, due to several circumstances, the Mediterranean empires all fell in a very short period. One can assume reasonably that trade between the northern countries and the Mediterranean, came to an abrupt end. https://www.history.com/topics/pre-history/bronze-age

However, the Nordic Bronze Age seems to have thrived through this period, lasting up to 500 BCE, thus lasting well beyond the collapse in the Mediterranean BA. Some have pointed out that the Nordic Bronze Age art rivaled the best of the Mediterranean. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_Bronze_Age

(see this excellent Youtube recently posted re Nordic Bronze Age = https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_OFqGuLc7s )

This era was when the Únětice culture was at its peak. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unetice_culture

So a valid question is "did the collapse of the Mediterranean BA trigger an opportunity for the R1b-U106 people who appeared to be in the right place at the right time to benefit from the change in trade. ?"

Bollox79
08-28-2019, 10:12 PM
Indeed and also follow the amber? Unetice hotspots around the Oder, with spread to Scania and West-Friesland. A possibility?
https://www.mupload.nl/img/huhic8.33.28.png

Concerning U106 and sub group DF98 at least - i.e. we have Jinonice Unetice man who is DF98 and probably S1911 and S1894... I am pretty sure that "early" amber finds centered roughly in eastern Germany over a Unetice culture area... I am pretty sure that is very close to being around Wettin and that area... that area is smack right on top of the Saale area of Germany and I remember reading a report about a bronze age monument in Germany that was first bell beaker and later Unetice and had some parallels possibly with the with Oostwoud tumulus with the U106 guy and lady. I'm currently thinking U106 was hold up somewhere in the North/North East Baltic (and/or Scandinavia etc) and spread later perhaps with Unetice and later cultures... simply put maybe L48 and crew went more North (or was already there?) and Z156 and crew stayed central and moved West or also went SW (keeping in mind the overall distribution of said sub groups)?

That monument I was thinking of is The ring sanctuary of Pömmelte, Germany: a monumental, multi-layered metaphor of the late third millennium BC - if you compare maps you can see the most western early amber/Unetice culture blob is basically around or on top of the Saale area and also Pommelte is located in that area... link to the paper on Pommelte: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326013133_The_ring_sanctuary_of_Pommelte_Germany_A _monumental_multi-layered_metaphor_of_the_late_third_millennium_BC

Amber finds would show any "cultures (so any Y-DNA groups associated with said culture" moving West etc towards the Rhine and also North to the Nordic area... add to that a recent paper I saw linked to imported metal object from Unetice areas into Nordics areas... and I think we are kind of seeing the ways group would have traveled based on what little aDNA we have at the moment...

Cheers!

Edit: looking at Finn's map there appears to also be trade or movement to the SE also... I believe Dr. Iain said overall he sees some movement back East in early U106 sub groups, but mainly a thrust West - though that is also possibly due to too many Isles samples/kits and not nearly enough continental kits etc.

Bollox79
08-28-2019, 10:15 PM
This post is adding to the comments re what was going on in the world around the time R1b-U106 began expanding.

Perhaps the most significant (and likely relevant) event in the BA era, was the collapse of the BA in the Mediterranean. This is said to have happened around 1200 BCE. And interestingly this is is a few years before the massive battle at Tollense (Sth Baltic).

It is well documented that Amber trade between the Baltic and Mediterranean was well established in 1200 BCE. But, due to several circumstances, the Mediterranean empires all fell in a very short period. One can assume reasonably that trade between the northern countries and the Mediterranean, came to an abrupt end. https://www.history.com/topics/pre-history/bronze-age

However, the Nordic Bronze Age seems to have thrived through this period, lasting up to 500 BCE, thus lasting well beyond the collapse in the Mediterranean BA. Some have pointed out that the Nordic Bronze Age art rivaled the best of the Mediterranean. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_Bronze_Age

(see this excellent Youtube recently posted re Nordic Bronze Age = https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_OFqGuLc7s )

This era was when the Únětice culture was at its peak. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unetice_culture

So a valid question is "did the collapse of the Mediterranean BA trigger an opportunity for the R1b-U106 people who appeared to be in the right place at the right time to benefit from the change in trade. ?"

Ahh interesting - so it might be that Med trade dried up a bit and trade became more centered in the "North?"

Finn
08-29-2019, 07:00 PM
Concerning U106 and sub group DF98 at least - i.e. we have Jinonice Unetice man who is DF98 and probably S1911 and S1894... I am pretty sure that "early" amber finds centered roughly in eastern Germany over a Unetice culture area... I am pretty sure that is very close to being around Wettin and that area... that area is smack right on top of the Saale area of Germany and I remember reading a report about a bronze age monument in Germany that was first bell beaker and later Unetice and had some parallels possibly with the with Oostwoud tumulus with the U106 guy and lady. I'm currently thinking U106 was hold up somewhere in the North/North East Baltic (and/or Scandinavia etc) and spread later perhaps with Unetice and later cultures... simply put maybe L48 and crew went more North (or was already there?) and Z156 and crew stayed central and moved West or also went SW (keeping in mind the overall distribution of said sub groups)?

That monument I was thinking of is The ring sanctuary of Pömmelte, Germany: a monumental, multi-layered metaphor of the late third millennium BC - if you compare maps you can see the most western early amber/Unetice culture blob is basically around or on top of the Saale area and also Pommelte is located in that area... link to the paper on Pommelte: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326013133_The_ring_sanctuary_of_Pommelte_Germany_A _monumental_multi-layered_metaphor_of_the_late_third_millennium_BC

Amber finds would show any "cultures (so any Y-DNA groups associated with said culture" moving West etc towards the Rhine and also North to the Nordic area... add to that a recent paper I saw linked to imported metal object from Unetice areas into Nordics areas... and I think we are kind of seeing the ways group would have traveled based on what little aDNA we have at the moment...

Cheers!

Edit: looking at Finn's map there appears to also be trade or movement to the SE also... I believe Dr. Iain said overall he sees some movement back East in early U106 sub groups, but mainly a thrust West - though that is also possibly due to too many Isles samples/kits and not nearly enough continental kits etc.

Nice analysis thanks!!!:thumb::thumb:

Dewsloth
08-29-2019, 07:13 PM
This post is adding to the comments re what was going on in the world around the time R1b-U106 began expanding.

Perhaps the most significant (and likely relevant) event in the BA era, was the collapse of the BA in the Mediterranean. This is said to have happened around 1200 BCE. And interestingly this is is a few years before the massive battle at Tollense (Sth Baltic).

It is well documented that Amber trade between the Baltic and Mediterranean was well established in 1200 BCE. But, due to several circumstances, the Mediterranean empires all fell in a very short period. One can assume reasonably that trade between the northern countries and the Mediterranean, came to an abrupt end. https://www.history.com/topics/pre-history/bronze-age

However, the Nordic Bronze Age seems to have thrived through this period, lasting up to 500 BCE, thus lasting well beyond the collapse in the Mediterranean BA. Some have pointed out that the Nordic Bronze Age art rivaled the best of the Mediterranean. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_Bronze_Age

(see this excellent Youtube recently posted re Nordic Bronze Age = https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_OFqGuLc7s )

This era was when the Únětice culture was at its peak. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unetice_culture

So a valid question is "did the collapse of the Mediterranean BA trigger an opportunity for the R1b-U106 people who appeared to be in the right place at the right time to benefit from the change in trade. ?"

Along those lines, see the map below:


Thanks, here is the geographical and chronological distribution of Naue II sword finds known as of about two years ago:

17947

Edit: Source: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284811960_Connected_Histories_the_Dynamics_of_Bron ze_Age_Interaction_and_Trade_1500-1100_bc

mihaitzateo
08-31-2019, 07:09 PM
A lively discussion has started to develop over the origins of U106 on this forum, and I have decided to create a separate topic devoted to this subject. At the same time, I will add in my own hypothesis.

First of all, I will use Iain McDonald's age analysis (based on the old Build37 Big Y and Y Elite results) at: http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~mcdonald/genetics/table.html. Even this somewhat dated analysis is comprised of many more U106+ samples than YFull has to date, and when it comes to age analysis, size does matter. McDonald dates the origin of U106 itself to 3022 BC with a 95% Confidence Interval between 3699 BC — 2465 BC.

The two earliest U106+ remains to date (RISE98 & I7196) are dated to roughly 2300BC - 2000 BC, which is likely several hundred years after U106's origins. We are missing data from the critical genesis period of U106's development. As such, we cannot even make a valid educated guess about the origins of U106 itself.

While we don't have any information on the earliest days of U106, I believe the Ancient/Medieval/Royal U106+ results published to date https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rpJP0Bt4qUQb9wWBFA7i1tLPV75ie_qS0iplwvvlVmQ/edit#gid=1743270299 gives us enough information to hypothesize about some of the subclades of U106.

What stands out most to me is how one subclade, Z156, is predominantly found in central Europe, while the other subclades (Z301, Z18 and U106+/Z381-/Z18-) are predominantly found in Scandinavia. Z301 and Z156 are the two major claces of Z381 while both Z381 and Z18 are direct subclades of BY30097. The estimated dates of origin (95% CI) are:

Z381 2964 BC (3589 BC — 2432 BC)
Z301 2752 BC (3362 BC — 2211 BC)
Z156 2864 BC (3470 BC — 2324 BC)

Z18 2380 BC (3079 BC — 1773 BC)

These dates of origin for Z381 and its two main subclades are not all that far removed from the age of U106 itself, while Z18 is considerably younger than the rest.

The separation between Z156 and the rest of U106 can be seen even in the very earliest U106+ remains discovered to date. RISE98 is U106+/Z381-/Z18- and is found in Scandinavia, while I7196 is Z156+ and is found near what is now Prague, Czech Republic.

I have plotted the U106+ remains on a Community Walk map http://www.communitywalk.com/map/index/2236108 and made some attempt to color-code the SNP results (I am partially color blind, so it is a challenge). I have made Z156 and its two major subclades (DF98 & DF96) various shades of blue. Of the 13 Z156+ results (which include DF96 & DF98) 3 are in England (the two Roman Gladiators in York and a Viking buried at Oxford University) with 1 found in Denmark and the another one in Sweden. The other 8 are found in Central Europe, spread between Spain (I10895) and Szolad, Hungary.

There are a scattering of Z381 & Z18 results found outside of Scandinavia, but it is clear where the bulk of these clades are found in Scandinavia (and England which could be explained by the Germanic and Viking settlements on the Island).

What is the Hypothesis?
That R1B-U106 have originated in North Europe?
It makes sense to me, seems that Germanic tribes (except East Germanics) spread I1, I2 (but not I2din) and R1B-U106 and R1A-Norse, in the first phase.
I wrote that R1B-U106 is also found in Serbia (Z381) at something like 1.5% of the paternal lines, or so.
Should have been brought by Early Slavs, that started their migration from Baltics, after, remained a period in Ukraine and after migrated South.
History mentions very good relations between Early Slavs and Danish and Swedish Vikings.
Also, there was weird, that is known Rurik&Co were Swedish ethnics, but Russia , while having I1, it does not have R1A-Norse.
So, Rurik&Co might have brought R1B-U106 in Russia and Ukraine.
So,is interesting to see if R1B-U106 Scandinavian is found in Russia and Ukraine.

In the link about R1B-U106 present in the Moldovans from Neamt County, R1B-U106 was found to be 3.8% in Ukrainians.
http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/2013/01/y-dna-of-moldovans.html?m=1
There are 2 Ukrainians from 53 tested, that have R1B-M405/S21/U106. But we do not know if that R1B-U106 is Scandinavian or Central European.
I suppose it was brought by Swedish warriors of mister Rurik.

Finn
09-07-2019, 08:54 AM
A new paper about R1b U106 stronghold Netherlands.....

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?2573-New-DNA-Papers-General-Discussion-Thread&p=598369&viewfull=1#post598369

uintah106
10-13-2019, 04:18 PM
Let us keep up with this Bell Beaker grave in Bavaria. If He was u106 that moves its origin (u106) firmly into Central Europe.

Bollox79
10-16-2019, 10:55 PM
Let us keep up with this Bell Beaker grave in Bavaria. If He was u106 that moves its origin (u106) firmly into Central Europe.

Yeah I'm curious as to whether Alex W. can get anything else out of the bam file etc...

Wing Genealogist
10-17-2019, 11:50 PM
I have asked Williamson to analyze the BAM files for HUGO_180sk1. There were two BAM files for each sample (one run on an illumina NextSeq 500 series machine and the other on an illumina HiSeq4000 series machine). Unfortunately BOTH files show very poor SNP calling. He was unable to discover ANY positive SNP results below R-M269.

I believe he has automated his BAM file analysis results to a degree, and likely eliminates any single read C->T calls due to the potential for deamination. This study has already used other techniques to reduce/eliminate these errant calls. As stated earlier, the single positive read for M405 (U106) is very speculative and can easily be an error of one sort or another. Therefor, this sample cannot be called as positive for anything below R-M269.

uintah106
10-19-2019, 01:26 AM
A lively discussion has started to develop over the origins of U106 on this forum, and I have decided to create a separate topic devoted to this subject. At the same time, I will add in my own hypothesis.

First of all, I will use Iain McDonald's age analysis (based on the old Build37 Big Y and Y Elite results) at: http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~mcdonald/genetics/table.html. Even this somewhat dated analysis is comprised of many more U106+ samples than YFull has to date, and when it comes to age analysis, size does matter. McDonald dates the origin of U106 itself to 3022 BC with a 95% Confidence Interval between 3699 BC — 2465 BC.

The two earliest U106+ remains to date (RISE98 & I7196) are dated to roughly 2300BC - 2000 BC, which is likely several hundred years after U106's origins. We are missing data from the critical genesis period of U106's development. As such, we cannot even make a valid educated guess about the origins of U106 itself.

While we don't have any information on the earliest days of U106, I believe the Ancient/Medieval/Royal U106+ results published to date https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rpJP0Bt4qUQb9wWBFA7i1tLPV75ie_qS0iplwvvlVmQ/edit#gid=1743270299 gives us enough information to hypothesize about some of the subclades of U106.

What stands out most to me is how one subclade, Z156, is predominantly found in central Europe, while the other subclades (Z301, Z18 and U106+/Z381-/Z18-) are predominantly found in Scandinavia. Z301 and Z156 are the two major claces of Z381 while both Z381 and Z18 are direct subclades of BY30097. The estimated dates of origin (95% CI) are:

Z381 2964 BC (3589 BC — 2432 BC)
Z301 2752 BC (3362 BC — 2211 BC)
Z156 2864 BC (3470 BC — 2324 BC)

Z18 2380 BC (3079 BC — 1773 BC)

These dates of origin for Z381 and its two main subclades are not all that far removed from the age of U106 itself, while Z18 is considerably younger than the rest.

The separation between Z156 and the rest of U106 can be seen even in the very earliest U106+ remains discovered to date. RISE98 is U106+/Z381-/Z18- and is found in Scandinavia, while I7196 is Z156+ and is found near what is now Prague, Czech Republic.

I have plotted the U106+ remains on a Community Walk map http://www.communitywalk.com/map/index/2236108 and made some attempt to color-code the SNP results (I am partially color blind, so it is a challenge). I have made Z156 and its two major subclades (DF98 & DF96) various shades of blue. Of the 13 Z156+ results (which include DF96 & DF98) 3 are in England (the two Roman Gladiators in York and a Viking buried at Oxford University) with 1 found in Denmark and the another one in Sweden. The other 8 are found in Central Europe, spread between Spain (I10895) and Szolad, Hungary.

There are a scattering of Z381 & Z18 results found outside of Scandinavia, but it is clear where the bulk of these clades are found in Scandinavia (and England which could be explained by the Germanic and Viking settlements on the Island).Have Jutland Bell Beakers even tested yet?At least one Danish archaeologists views Danish Bell Beaker as a mainly local cultural continuation.Perhaps it was all P312?Maybe U106 sprouted there.

Finn
10-19-2019, 11:05 AM
Question for the R1b U106 experts! I read everywhere that R1b U106 U198 is typically West-Germanic and is not so much North Germanic (Scandic).

There is a hotspot of U198 in outmost northeast Dutch (=100% my auDNA region). And of course are some remarks about L47 also welcome....

It's know from archeology that this an expansion zone of the Chauci, the Saxons form German North Sea Coast.

Image from Maarten Larmuseau, about the Dutch genetical landscape:
https://www.mupload.nl/img/79o6zh2.png

Wing Genealogist
10-19-2019, 11:22 AM
I have not personally read anything about U198 being
typically West-Germanic and is not so much North Germanic (Scandic). But, to be honest, I don't take much stock in any posting claiming a knowledge about the origins or frequency of any U106 subclade as we still don't really have enough information from Ancient DNA to make these claims accurate.

The Larmuseau images you are showing states they discovered only 40 U198 individuals in all of the region. The percentages listed are so fine scaled that another random survey of the area may result in a somewhat different heat map. This is especially tree of the areas with the smallest dots (which indicate the fewest individuals from the whole region sampled).

Finn
10-19-2019, 12:29 PM
I have not personally read anything about U198 being But, to be honest, I don't take much stock in any posting claiming a knowledge about the origins or frequency of any U106 subclade as we still don't really have enough information from Ancient DNA to make these claims accurate.

The Larmuseau images you are showing states they discovered only 40 U198 individuals in all of the region. The percentages listed are so fine scaled that another random survey of the area may result in a somewhat different heat map. This is especially tree of the areas with the smallest dots (which indicate the fewest individuals from the whole region sampled).

It's time to converge the things. I only see diverging trends. Subclades of subclades, and also constantly renumbered. What makes sense?
No one seems to be able or aims to see the forest for its trees.
IMO a total loss.....

Finn
10-19-2019, 12:37 PM
I have not personally read anything about U198 being But, to be honest, I don't take much stock in any posting claiming a knowledge about the origins or frequency of any U106 subclade as we still don't really have enough information from Ancient DNA to make these claims accurate.

The Larmuseau images you are showing states they discovered only 40 U198 individuals in all of the region. The percentages listed are so fine scaled that another random survey of the area may result in a somewhat different heat map. This is especially tree of the areas with the smallest dots (which indicate the fewest individuals from the whole region sampled).

And on topic, when the map of the Chauci expansion shows the same configuration as R1b U198 is this total coincidence or is this may be a signal that Chauci beared R1b U198.
You see after the shake up of the big migration there was no big shake up for this region.....


R1b1b2a1a rs17222279 M467/S29/U198 Southern England + northern Germany Germanic (Anglo-Saxon)


https://www.snpedia.com/index.php/Haplogroup_R1b1b2g_(Y-DNA)

Jenny
10-19-2019, 01:43 PM
My father's last name was Trask. (U106) Thats also the name of a small village in balmy southern Sweden. It may also relate to a tiny village adjacent to York (Thirsk) There's no evidence however in genealogy so it's just anecdotal.

Finn
12-29-2019, 07:37 AM
A lively discussion has started to develop over the origins of U106 on this forum, and I have decided to create a separate topic devoted to this subject. At the same time, I will add in my own hypothesis.

First of all, I will use Iain McDonald's age analysis (based on the old Build37 Big Y and Y Elite results) at: http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~mcdonald/genetics/table.html. Even this somewhat dated analysis is comprised of many more U106+ samples than YFull has to date, and when it comes to age analysis, size does matter. McDonald dates the origin of U106 itself to 3022 BC with a 95% Confidence Interval between 3699 BC — 2465 BC.

The two earliest U106+ remains to date (RISE98 & I7196) are dated to roughly 2300BC - 2000 BC, which is likely several hundred years after U106's origins. We are missing data from the critical genesis period of U106's development. As such, we cannot even make a valid educated guess about the origins of U106 itself.

While we don't have any information on the earliest days of U106, I believe the Ancient/Medieval/Royal U106+ results published to date https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rpJP0Bt4qUQb9wWBFA7i1tLPV75ie_qS0iplwvvlVmQ/edit#gid=1743270299 gives us enough information to hypothesize about some of the subclades of U106.

What stands out most to me is how one subclade, Z156, is predominantly found in central Europe, while the other subclades (Z301, Z18 and U106+/Z381-/Z18-) are predominantly found in Scandinavia. Z301 and Z156 are the two major claces of Z381 while both Z381 and Z18 are direct subclades of BY30097. The estimated dates of origin (95% CI) are:

Z381 2964 BC (3589 BC — 2432 BC)
Z301 2752 BC (3362 BC — 2211 BC)
Z156 2864 BC (3470 BC — 2324 BC)

Z18 2380 BC (3079 BC — 1773 BC)

These dates of origin for Z381 and its two main subclades are not all that far removed from the age of U106 itself, while Z18 is considerably younger than the rest.

The separation between Z156 and the rest of U106 can be seen even in the very earliest U106+ remains discovered to date. RISE98 is U106+/Z381-/Z18- and is found in Scandinavia, while I7196 is Z156+ and is found near what is now Prague, Czech Republic.

I have plotted the U106+ remains on a Community Walk map http://www.communitywalk.com/map/index/2236108 and made some attempt to color-code the SNP results (I am partially color blind, so it is a challenge). I have made Z156 and its two major subclades (DF98 & DF96) various shades of blue. Of the 13 Z156+ results (which include DF96 & DF98) 3 are in England (the two Roman Gladiators in York and a Viking buried at Oxford University) with 1 found in Denmark and the another one in Sweden. The other 8 are found in Central Europe, spread between Spain (I10895) and Szolad, Hungary.

There are a scattering of Z381 & Z18 results found outside of Scandinavia, but it is clear where the bulk of these clades are found in Scandinavia (and England which could be explained by the Germanic and Viking settlements on the Island).

For the debate here I will give a wrap up about the spread of R1b U106 in NW Europe.

I begin with two facts:

1. It is without discussion that the core zone of R1b U106 (https://www.mupload.nl/img/mo70gy.46.30.png)is the line North Dutch, NW Germany up to Jutland. This is congruent with the Sögel-Wohlde/ Elp (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elp_culture#/media/File:BronzAgeElp.png)culture in the Bronze Age. And also overlaps with the Ingvaeonic/North Sea Germanic area (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Sea_Germanic#/media/File:Germanic_dialects_ca._AD_1.png) in the Iron Age.

2. The oldest sample from this core zone is from Elp/Bronze Age about 1800 BC and is located in Oostwoud, North Holland/West Frisia. So based on the samples we now have the spread of R1b U106 is to be dated in the Bronze Age.

But what is the source or R1b U106 in these core zon?. I wil examine two scenario's. Out of the many I choose two scenario's. One based on the oldest NW European sample from Lilla Beddinge Scania about 2300-2000 BC (LNBA). That's Rise 98. And one scenario from the other old sample (I7196): Jimonice/ Prague about 2000 BC, the Unetice period.

I. LNBA Scania (Rise 98). At first hand a likely scenario for a spread to the core zone. Isn't it (proto-)Germanic and didn't the (proto-)Germanics spread from Scania to other parts of NW Europe. So simple as it looks this is on second hand not plausible. First because the Jastorf culture/ area of Northern Germany has the better papers to be the first (proto-)Germanic. Sweden was not it's core.And mostly because there is no known EBA or MBA spread from Sweden to the Elp area. According to nowadays archeological like Vandkilde, Bergerbrant, Fokkens there were certainly in EBA and MBA two spheres in the Nordic Bronze Age: a Sögel-Wohlde/Elp sphere and a Valsømagle sphere.The Sögel-Wohlde/Elp sphere is from NE Dutch (bordered by the IJssel) to North Jutland (Aarhus-Lemvig line). The Valsømagle sphere is North Jutland, the Danish Isles and Southern Sweden. There is no evidence that there was a Bronze Age migration movement from Valsømagle that reached Oostwoud about 1800 BC. There was neither a massive movement from Sweden to Prague about 2000 BC. And last but not least the Valsømagle area was (and is) not a R1b U106 hotspot. So Rise98 is in that respect more an outlier.

II. Unetice (Prague I7196). On the first hand the less likely scenario because what could be the connection between BA Unetice and BA Elp? Ins't it very on distance. Yes it is. But when we look al Sögel-Wohlde/ Elp than we can see that certainly regarding Y-DNA (a male line!) there is a proven immigration of what archeologist called the Sögel-Wohlde warriors. We don't know much about them, but they left their footprint in the whole Elp area in the from of distinct man graves. And what is clear about their graves: they are 100% Unetice muster. Even the swords (that was new at that time in the Elp area!) are of Moravian muster. The biggest grave is found in Drouwen (North Dutch) and according to the Unetice rules this belonged (with golden ear rings) to the highest ranks of the Unetice graves. These warriors were not indigenous they were likely rooted in the Unetice area.

This makes scenario II very likely also because of the fact that in the period 2300-2000 BC according to recent finding in Scania in exactly the area of Lilla Beddinge (SW Scania) there was an influence of Central East Europe. That makes a migration influence from the Unetice area to Scania very likely.

So of course it stays a scenario (so possible, an educated guess, remember that!) but we have much reason to believe that the initial spread from R1b U106 is from Central-East Europe (Unetice area) to it's core zone and that the Sögel-Wohlde warriors are responsible for a R1b U106 footprint in this area.

imcdonald
12-29-2019, 02:07 PM
Hi Finn et al.,

I don't normally post on Anthrogenica (too much for me to keep up with), but I've been asked for my opinion.

I'd broadly agree with everything here up to the conclusion. I think the origin of R-U106 probably lies towards central Europe, but to put any one ancient DNA result at its centre is probably short-sighted. If you only take a small number of individuals dated 600 years after the foundation of the haplogroup, they are all going to be outliers in their own special ways, especially at a time of such major population upheaval. RISE98 has no living descendants, and Prague I7196 follows the R-Z156 bias towards the south-east of the R-U106 distribution.

The R-U106 founder is more closely related to the most ancient R-P312 DNA than he is to either RISE98 or Prague I7196, and the foundation of R-P312, R-U106 and R-S1194 are intimately tied together much more closely than they are to existing ancient DNA results. While R-P312 spread in a very different fashion, the origin of these three haplogroups is probably somewhere very culturally and geographically similar. So we should instead weight our discussion toward the R-L151 founder.

In all this, we are scrabbling around for scraps of data that can't really provide us with a firm conclusion. If I had to put an exact location to the origin of R-U106, I'd say somewhere around Rostock, but that's only a gut feeling - I don't think we have the data to be anything like that precise.

I recently discussed the spread of R-U106 sub-clades here:
https://groups.io/g/R1b-U106/message/637

Cheers,

Iain.

mihaitzateo
12-29-2019, 03:00 PM
Why R1B-U106 has the highest concentration in Netherlands?
How that 24% of Switzerland paternal lines are R1B-U106?
In Tyrol there is no R1B-U106.
But,in Bavaria there is 24% R1B-U106.
Eifel region, 26% R1B-U106.
Lower Saxony has highest R1B-U106 from Germany, 29%.

If we take Sweden, all R1B there is not 20%.


How come that High German dialects are putting the verb at the end of the sentence, as Latins did, if their language was brought from Scandinavia?
To add, Germany has no R1A-Norse.
So these arguments are making me think that:
R1B-U106 was spread by protoWestGermanic people and by Germany Celtic tribes and that it does not originates in Scandinavia.
As the original poster said, are 2 large branches of R1B-U106.
The Central European one is associated with Hallstatt Celts/Germany and Austria and Switzerland Alpine Celts.
The other branch is protoWestGermanic people.
This is how I understand things.

mihaitzateo
12-29-2019, 04:02 PM
A lively discussion has started to develop over the origins of U106 on this forum, and I have decided to create a separate topic devoted to this subject. At the same time, I will add in my own hypothesis.

First of all, I will use Iain McDonald's age analysis (based on the old Build37 Big Y and Y Elite results) at: http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~mcdonald/genetics/table.html. Even this somewhat dated analysis is comprised of many more U106+ samples than YFull has to date, and when it comes to age analysis, size does matter. McDonald dates the origin of U106 itself to 3022 BC with a 95% Confidence Interval between 3699 BC — 2465 BC.

The two earliest U106+ remains to date (RISE98 & I7196) are dated to roughly 2300BC - 2000 BC, which is likely several hundred years after U106's origins. We are missing data from the critical genesis period of U106's development. As such, we cannot even make a valid educated guess about the origins of U106 itself.

While we don't have any information on the earliest days of U106, I believe the Ancient/Medieval/Royal U106+ results published to date https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rpJP0Bt4qUQb9wWBFA7i1tLPV75ie_qS0iplwvvlVmQ/edit#gid=1743270299 gives us enough information to hypothesize about some of the subclades of U106.

What stands out most to me is how one subclade, Z156, is predominantly found in central Europe, while the other subclades (Z301, Z18 and U106+/Z381-/Z18-) are predominantly found in Scandinavia. Z301 and Z156 are the two major claces of Z381 while both Z381 and Z18 are direct subclades of BY30097. The estimated dates of origin (95% CI) are:

Z381 2964 BC (3589 BC — 2432 BC)
Z301 2752 BC (3362 BC — 2211 BC)
Z156 2864 BC (3470 BC — 2324 BC)

Z18 2380 BC (3079 BC — 1773 BC)

These dates of origin for Z381 and its two main subclades are not all that far removed from the age of U106 itself, while Z18 is considerably younger than the rest.

The separation between Z156 and the rest of U106 can be seen even in the very earliest U106+ remains discovered to date. RISE98 is U106+/Z381-/Z18- and is found in Scandinavia, while I7196 is Z156+ and is found near what is now Prague, Czech Republic.

I have plotted the U106+ remains on a Community Walk map http://www.communitywalk.com/map/index/2236108 and made some attempt to color-code the SNP results (I am partially color blind, so it is a challenge). I have made Z156 and its two major subclades (DF98 & DF96) various shades of blue. Of the 13 Z156+ results (which include DF96 & DF98) 3 are in England (the two Roman Gladiators in York and a Viking buried at Oxford University) with 1 found in Denmark and the another one in Sweden. The other 8 are found in Central Europe, spread between Spain (I10895) and Szolad, Hungary.

There are a scattering of Z381 & Z18 results found outside of Scandinavia, but it is clear where the bulk of these clades are found in Scandinavia (and England which could be explained by the Germanic and Viking settlements on the Island).
The OP has missed all that R1B-U106 from Lower Saxony.
There is some quite ancient R1B-U106 found in Lower Saxony, Lichtenstein Cave.
It dates from around 1000 BC or more ancient and according to what is found there, these people are proto-Celts.
http://dirkschweitzer.net/LichtensteinCaveAnalysis0804DS.pdf
They are related to Hallstatt Celts.

In the link posted https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rpJP0Bt4qUQb9wWBFA7i1tLPV75ie_qS0iplwvvlVmQ/edit#gid=1743270299 by OP, it tells that most ancient R1B-U106 found till today is from Bavaria and was very likely a Bell Beaker so another ProtoCelt, not a Germanic person.

ArmandoR1b
12-29-2019, 05:04 PM
The R-U106 founder is more closely related to the most ancient R-P312 DNA than he is to either RISE98 or Prague I7196, and the foundation of R-P312, R-U106 and R-S1194 are intimately tied together much more closely than they are to existing ancient DNA results. While R-P312 spread in a very different fashion, the origin of these three haplogroups is probably somewhere very culturally and geographically similar. So we should instead weight our discussion toward the R-L151 founder.

It sure would be nice to have some ancient specimens with lower bound 14C dates of 3,000 calBCE-4,000 calBCE that have a decent amount of coverage of SNPs phylogenetically equivalent to R-L23 and downstream of R-L23 including R-L151 and it's phylogenetic equivalents and that at least some of the specimens are derived for some of the SNPs. I wonder if there will be specimens in the upcoming study of foragers from the Russian forest zone (http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2019/12/a-note-on-steppe-maykop.html?showComment=1576900077205#c17867962655 38043934) that will fall into that period.

Finn
12-29-2019, 05:46 PM
Hi Finn et al.,

I don't normally post on Anthrogenica (too much for me to keep up with), but I've been asked for my opinion.

I'd broadly agree with everything here up to the conclusion. I think the origin of R-U106 probably lies towards central Europe, but to put any one ancient DNA result at its centre is probably short-sighted. If you only take a small number of individuals dated 600 years after the foundation of the haplogroup, they are all going to be outliers in their own special ways, especially at a time of such major population upheaval. RISE98 has no living descendants, and Prague I7196 follows the R-Z156 bias towards the south-east of the R-U106 distribution.

The R-U106 founder is more closely related to the most ancient R-P312 DNA than he is to either RISE98 or Prague I7196, and the foundation of R-P312, R-U106 and R-S1194 are intimately tied together much more closely than they are to existing ancient DNA results. While R-P312 spread in a very different fashion, the origin of these three haplogroups is probably somewhere very culturally and geographically similar. So we should instead weight our discussion toward the R-L151 founder.

In all this, we are scrabbling around for scraps of data that can't really provide us with a firm conclusion. If I had to put an exact location to the origin of R-U106, I'd say somewhere around Rostock, but that's only a gut feeling - I don't think we have the data to be anything like that precise.

I recently discussed the spread of R-U106 sub-clades here:
https://groups.io/g/R1b-U106/message/637

Cheers,

Iain.


Thank you Iain, especially for your expose. I have to clarify myself. I had only the intention to describe the step to NW Europe c.q the core zone of R1b U106 (Elp/ North Sea Germanic area). Not aimed to describe the roots of R1b U106. Thanks again for that add.

I hope you will post again you are the absolute expert in this matter.

Finn
12-29-2019, 06:42 PM
The OP has missed all that R1B-U106 from Lower Saxony.
There is some quite ancient R1B-U106 found in Lower Saxony, Lichtenstein Cave.
It dates from around 1000 BC or more ancient and according to what is found there, these people are proto-Celts.
http://dirkschweitzer.net/LichtensteinCaveAnalysis0804DS.pdf
They are related to Hallstatt Celts.

In the link posted https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rpJP0Bt4qUQb9wWBFA7i1tLPV75ie_qS0iplwvvlVmQ/edit#gid=1743270299 by OP, it tells that most ancient R1B-U106 found till today is from Bavaria and was very likely a Bell Beaker so another ProtoCelt, not a Germanic person.


Was the Lichtenstein R1b confimed for U106? I guess in the end not but I could be wrong.

A certain spread from the Unetice could have effect the NW Germanics as shown ^^^ but also later on waves from Central-East Europe.

Wing Genealogist
12-29-2019, 06:54 PM
The OP has missed all that R1B-U106 from Lower Saxony.
There is some quite ancient R1B-U106 found in Lower Saxony, Lichtenstein Cave.
It dates from around 1000 BC or more ancient and according to what is found there, these people are proto-Celts.
http://dirkschweitzer.net/LichtensteinCaveAnalysis0804DS.pdf
They are related to Hallstatt Celts.

In the link posted https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rpJP0Bt4qUQb9wWBFA7i1tLPV75ie_qS0iplwvvlVmQ/edit#gid=1743270299 by OP, it tells that most ancient R1B-U106 found till today is from Bavaria and was very likely a Bell Beaker so another ProtoCelt, not a Germanic person.

The study you are referring to made a clade prediction on the basis of the 12 STR markers tested. AFAIK, there is only 1 STR differences between the Modal P312 value and the Modal U106 value: U106 had a mutation at DYS492 from 12 to 13. Since DYS492 was not one of the STR markers tested in this paper, the sample can only be said to fall under R1b-M269.

JonikW
12-29-2019, 08:15 PM
Hi Finn et al.,

I don't normally post on Anthrogenica (too much for me to keep up with), but I've been asked for my opinion.

I'd broadly agree with everything here up to the conclusion. I think the origin of R-U106 probably lies towards central Europe, but to put any one ancient DNA result at its centre is probably short-sighted. If you only take a small number of individuals dated 600 years after the foundation of the haplogroup, they are all going to be outliers in their own special ways, especially at a time of such major population upheaval. RISE98 has no living descendants, and Prague I7196 follows the R-Z156 bias towards the south-east of the R-U106 distribution.

The R-U106 founder is more closely related to the most ancient R-P312 DNA than he is to either RISE98 or Prague I7196, and the foundation of R-P312, R-U106 and R-S1194 are intimately tied together much more closely than they are to existing ancient DNA results. While R-P312 spread in a very different fashion, the origin of these three haplogroups is probably somewhere very culturally and geographically similar. So we should instead weight our discussion toward the R-L151 founder.

In all this, we are scrabbling around for scraps of data that can't really provide us with a firm conclusion. If I had to put an exact location to the origin of R-U106, I'd say somewhere around Rostock, but that's only a gut feeling - I don't think we have the data to be anything like that precise.

I recently discussed the spread of R-U106 sub-clades here:
https://groups.io/g/R1b-U106/message/637

Cheers,

Iain.

Thanks for posting here and for including your fascinating link. I'm intrigued by U106, partly because it appears alongside my own I1 so often both in aDNA studies and modern distribution and I’ve long been aware of your excellent work. I was interested in your use of the block tree because I’ve dabbled in similar comparisons for I1 clades, but wasn’t aware that Scandinavia is almost as well represented as the Isles in the dataset now. That gives me a little more confidence in drawing overall conclusions from the admittedly sparse data regarding Migration Period movements that brought much of both the U106 and I-M253 pool to Britain.

I particularly appreciate your conclusions on Scotland because in my opinion that country is key to differentiating between what can broadly be considered to be the Saxon and Anglian movements to Britain (attested by Bede but also observable in the material culture, with some caveats regarding the "Mischgruppe" of peoples that gathered on the Friesland coast before heading for new shores). That’s because while it’s not easy to divide English testers into those of either continental origin given the typical lack of a deep paper tree, only the Angles had a substantial kingdom in Scotland, while the later Norwegian Viking incursions north of the border might reasonably be expected to incline towards typically northern Scandinavian clades, such as L22 in the case of I1. If your Rostock hunch is right, we might expect U106 to be better represented among Saxons than Angles or Jutes, and that’s just what the block tree data show in my view.

Hence Scotland accounts for 8.48 percent of U106 testers (England 25.01 percent) on the public haplotree, while it makes up 18.75 percent (England 23.30 percent) for my own S12289 branch of I1, albeit from a smaller sample set. That looks informative to me...

I hope you'll post here again. As for I1, We’ve got some good work going on now but have generally missed the lack of a driving force since Ken Nordtvedt stepped back. Keep it up.

JMcB
12-29-2019, 09:06 PM
Thanks for posting here and for including your fascinating link. I'm intrigued by U106, partly because it appears alongside my own I1 so often both in aDNA studies and modern distribution and I’ve long been aware of your excellent work. I was interested in your use of the block tree because I’ve dabbled in similar comparisons for I1 clades, but wasn’t aware that Scandinavia is almost as well represented as the Isles in the dataset now. That gives me a little more confidence in drawing overall conclusions from the admittedly sparse data regarding Migration Period movements that brought much of both the U106 and I-M253 pool to Britain.

I particularly appreciate your conclusions on Scotland because in my opinion that country is key to differentiating between what can broadly be considered to be the Saxon and Anglian movements to Britain (attested by Bede but also observable in the material culture, with some caveats regarding the "Mischgruppe" of peoples that gathered on the Friesland coast before heading for new shores). That’s because while it’s not easy to divide English testers into those of either continental origin given the typical lack of a deep paper tree, only the Angles had a substantial kingdom in Scotland, while the later Norwegian Viking incursions north of the border might reasonably be expected to incline towards typically northern Scandinavian clades, such as L22 in the case of I1. If your Rostock hunch is right, we might expect U106 to be better represented among Saxons than Angles or Jutes, and that’s just what the block tree data show in my view.

Hence Scotland accounts for 8.48 percent of U106 testers (England 25.01 percent) on the public haplotree, while it makes up 18.75 percent (England 23.30 percent) for my own S12289 branch of I1, albeit from a smaller sample set. That looks informative to me...

I hope you'll post here again. As for I1, We’ve got some good work going on now but have generally missed the lack of a driving force since Ken Nordtvedt stepped back. Keep it up.

Coincidentally, just before Ken Nordtvedt left the scene, I read a post of his on the old Rootsweb forum. Where he said he was now coming to the conclusion that I-M253 had formed further to the east than was previously thought. In the area of Pomerania. I remember him voicing surprise that this seemed to cause consternation among some, as it was really only a slight adjustment. Unfortunately, he didn’t say what brought him to that conclusion and it never came up again. I thought of that when Iain mentioned Rostock.

Finn
12-29-2019, 09:14 PM
Coincidentally, just before Ken Nordtvedt left the scene, I read a post of his on the old Rootsweb forum. Where he said he was now coming to the conclusion that I-M253 had formed further to the east than was previously thought. In the area of Pomerania. I remember him voicing surprise that this seemed to cause consternation among some, as it was really only a slight adjustment. Unfortunately, he didn’t say what brought him to that conclusion and it never came up again. I thought of that when Iain mentioned Rostock.

I would go just a little bit southwards from Rostock....the yellow area with number 4 besides the blue number 2 (or the connected 4 area's).

https://www.mupload.nl/img/v138ryu.11.00.png.

JonikW
12-29-2019, 09:21 PM
I would go just a little bit southwards from Rostock....the yellow area with number 4 besides the blue number 2 (or the connected 4 area's).

https://www.mupload.nl/img/v138ryu.11.00.png.

Interesting. As with U106, we'll need a lot more data before we can speak with confidence. But I can't help thinking the fact that I1 reaches its greatest density in southern Sweden today says something.

Finn
12-29-2019, 09:27 PM
Interesting. As with U106, we'll need a lot more data before we can speak with confidence. But I can't help thinking the fact that I1 reaches its greatest density in southern Sweden today says something.

Of course I was aiming at R1b U106, you see that Unetice comes very near Rostock but nothing more than what Iain says:' that's only a gut feeling - I don't think we have the data to be anything like that precise.'

JMcB
12-30-2019, 04:14 AM
I would go just a little bit southwards from Rostock....the yellow area with number 4 besides the blue number 2 (or the connected 4 area's).

https://www.mupload.nl/img/v138ryu.11.00.png.


While it’s certainly possible and not all that far away, it’s really hard to say. Personally, I’d love to know where M253 formed but at this point, I think we can only speak in broad terms. So I would think somewhere in the circle might be a reasonable guess. And if it turned out to be somewhere close by, I wouldn’t be surprised. As for U106, I’ll leave that for others to decide.


35656

Finn
12-30-2019, 06:10 AM
While it’s certainly possible and not all that far away, it’s really hard to say. Personally, I’d love to know where M253 formed but at this point, I think we can only speak in broad terms. So I would think somewhere in the circle might be a reasonable guess. And if it turned out to be somewhere close by, I wouldn’t be surprised. As for U106, I’ll leave that for others to decide.


35656


Indeed not easy to pinpoint JMcB, but this is David against Goliath, Unetice spread the Bronze Age, they were able produce this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mf1v70B6pgM

And build a civilization:

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/antiquity/article/armies-in-the-early-bronze-age-an-alternative-interpretation-of-unetice-culture-axe-hoards/B513FF389674EA20F20A91795CD99232

So if I had to gamble which culture or civilization was able to spread all over NW Europe in EBA/MBA the purple one still in the LN phase or the yellow one with the new technique and armies....

mihaitzateo
12-30-2019, 08:20 PM
Well, leaving the Liechstentein cave aside,what about the Bell Beaker from Bavaria carrying R1B-U106?
Bavaria is at 24% R1B-U106.
Between highest .
I think that Hallstatt Celts from Bavaria also carried R1B-U106, the Central European branch.
Is quite clear Ancient Saxons and Frisians had R1B-U106 at significant percentages, which branch/branches, that is interesting to know.
Is there any R1B-U106 more ancient than 400 AD found in Norway or Sweden?
Since it was a migration of Belgae into SE England, before Saxons migration, maybe a part of England R1B-U106 is of Belgae origins.

Wing Genealogist
12-30-2019, 09:26 PM
Well, leaving the Liechstentein cave aside,what about the Bell Beaker from Bavaria carrying R1B-U106?
Bavaria is at 24% R1B-U106.
Between highest .
I think that Hallstatt Celts from Bavaria also carried R1B-U106, the Central European branch.
Is quite clear Ancient Saxons and Frisians had R1B-U106 at significant percentages, which branch/branches, that is interesting to know.
Is there any R1B-U106 more ancient than 400 AD found in Norway or Sweden?
Since it was a migration of Belgae into SE England, before Saxons migration, maybe a part of England R1B-U106 is of Belgae origins.

To paraphrase Jerry Maguire "Show me the paper!"

I have collected every SNP verified ancient U106+ result I can find, and would love to have more results. You can see what I have found at:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rpJP0Bt4qUQb9wWBFA7i1tLPV75ie_qS0iplwvvlVmQ/edit?usp=sharing

AFAIK, The Bell Beaker papers to date only have a single speculative U106+ result, HUGO180sk1 (from Augsburg, Bavaria). This result has a single U106+ read, but this SNP result is only supported by two M269 level positive SNP results, so the U106+ result cannot be verified (ie it could easily be a mis-call, or a result of the deamination decay of DNA in ancient remains).

JonikW
12-30-2019, 09:39 PM
To paraphrase Jerry Maguire "Show me the paper!"

I have collected every SNP verified ancient U106+ result I can find, and would love to have more results. You can see what I have found at:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rpJP0Bt4qUQb9wWBFA7i1tLPV75ie_qS0iplwvvlVmQ/edit?usp=sharing

AFAIK, The Bell Beaker papers to date only have a single speculative U106+ result, HUGO180sk1 (from Augsburg, Bavaria). This result has a single U106+ read, but this SNP result is only supported by two M269 level positive SNP results, so the U106+ result cannot be verified (ie it could easily be a mis-call, or a result of the deamination decay of DNA in ancient remains).

I guess the forthcoming Reich paper on ancient Britain will tell us for sure one way or another. That can't come soon enough for me...

mihaitzateo
12-31-2019, 02:26 AM
Ok, I understood that the R1B-U106 from Bavaria Bell Beaker cannot be verified.
What it would be interested for this thread would be the Y DNA from Czech Republic,Saxony Anhalt.
There is a FB Group "Germany DNA" that you can join to see Y DNA for most lands of Germany.All have significant R1B-U106.
Sadly,Saxony Anhalt is missing.
Lowest R1B-U106 is in East Pomerania, about 7%.
In Salzburg and Tyrol from Austria, R1B-U106 is very low or absent.

Wing Genealogist
12-31-2019, 11:18 AM
We cannot use the Y-DNA SNP results of people living today to infer where U106 was in the past. A perfect example of this is the Western Hemisphere & Australia. Even the British Isles is a location U106 emigrated to long after its formation.

People have always moved around a lot. Ancient DNA results is showing this nearly constant movement much more than anyone ever expected.

While waiting for new papers to reveal more ancient DNA results is very frustrating, it is still the best tool we have to discover the origins and movement of the various clades.

JonikW
12-31-2019, 12:19 PM
We cannot use the Y-DNA SNP results of people living today to infer where U106 was in the past. A perfect example of this is the Western Hemisphere & Australia. Even the British Isles is a location U106 emigrated to long after its formation.

People have always moved around a lot. Ancient DNA results is showing this nearly constant movement much more than anyone ever expected.

While waiting for new papers to reveal more ancient DNA results is very frustrating, it is still the best tool we have to discover the origins and movement of the various clades.

I agree in the case of U106 although I'm sure you'd agree that we can we draw cautious conclusions about the past from some Y markers. For example L21's distribution in Celtic lands looks informative, and the heavy weighting of I1 in today's Scandinavia was reflected in that being the best represented haplogroup in the Viking paper. Let's hope 2020 brings us a lot more aDNA.:)

JMcB
12-31-2019, 03:32 PM
We cannot use the Y-DNA SNP results of people living today to infer where U106 was in the past. A perfect example of this is the Western Hemisphere & Australia. Even the British Isles is a location U106 emigrated to long after its formation.

People have always moved around a lot. Ancient DNA results is showing this nearly constant movement much more than anyone ever expected.

While waiting for new papers to reveal more ancient DNA results is very frustrating, it is still the best tool we have to discover the origins and movement of the various clades.


Coincidentally, that reminded me of the following from the Viking paper:

555: “Our findings also contradict the myth of the Vikings as peoples of pure local Scandinavian ancestry. In fact, we found many Viking Age individuals with high levels of foreign ancestry, both within and outside Scandinavia, suggesting ongoing gene flow with different peoples across Europe. Indeed it appears that some foreign peoples contributed more genetic ancestry to Scandinavia during this period than the Vikings contributed to them.”

JonikW
12-31-2019, 04:30 PM
Coincidentally, that reminded me of the following from the Viking paper:

555: “Our findings also contradict the myth of the Vikings as peoples of pure local Scandinavian ancestry. In fact, we found many Viking Age individuals with high levels of foreign ancestry, both within and outside Scandinavia, suggesting ongoing gene flow with different peoples across Europe. Indeed it appears that some foreign peoples contributed more genetic ancestry to Scandinavia during this period than the Vikings contributed to them.”

And those movements do link up with modern distribution, right down to highlighting likely Gaelic settlers in Medieval Iceland. The Ebenesersdóttir et al. ancient Iceland study also saw "an association between I1/R1a status and autosomal Norse ancestry ... in the 19 pre-Christian males". But I don't argue that this is always the case.

mihaitzateo
12-31-2019, 06:52 PM
We cannot use the Y-DNA SNP results of people living today to infer where U106 was in the past. A perfect example of this is the Western Hemisphere & Australia. Even the British Isles is a location U106 emigrated to long after its formation.

People have always moved around a lot. Ancient DNA results is showing this nearly constant movement much more than anyone ever expected.

While waiting for new papers to reveal more ancient DNA results is very frustrating, it is still the best tool we have to discover the origins and movement of the various clades.

Well, you cannot compare the migration to Australia or North America with the movements of Germanic and Celtic tribes in Europe.
I doubt that all protoGermanic tribes came from Scandinavia.
You have noticed that a part of R1B-U106 branches are only found in Central Europe.
A thing that is clear is that R1B-U106 is at low percentages in our days in the lands where Slavic is spoken.
Another thing is that if there would have been R1B-U106 in Sweden in 0 AD or earlier, this R1B-U106 should also be present at Swedish ethnics from Finland and at low percentages at Finns.

JonikW
12-31-2019, 07:35 PM
In a way Australia and America are perfect for illustrating how you can occasionally draw rigorous conclusions about the past from modern distribution. Just as you might conclude U106 in a village in today's Yorkshire was likely brought by early medieval invaders, so you can safely bet that U106 in a modern US person was likely brought by a European settler from the 16th century onwards.

mihaitzateo
12-31-2019, 09:10 PM
In a way Australia and America are perfect for illustrating how you can occasionally draw rigorous conclusions about the past from modern distribution. Just as you might conclude U106 in a village in today's Yorkshire was likely brought by early medieval invaders, so you can safely bet that U106 in a modern US person was likely brought by a European settler from the 16th century onwards.

Yes, but the diversity of R1B-U106 in North America is clearly higher than in Australia.
In North America was a lot of German,Scandinavian,English migration.
However,I think that the diversity of R1B-U106 is still higher in Netherlands , than in North America.

uintah106
01-01-2020, 02:48 AM
R U106 was in Sweden earlier than 2000 B.C. I1 distribution in Nordic countries is a fascinating puzzle.

mihaitzateo
01-01-2020, 11:16 AM
R U106 was in Sweden earlier than 2000 B.C. I1 distribution in Nordic countries is a fascinating puzzle.

It seems that Finland has also a few R1B-U106.
Like 1% or so.
However, the data from different studies is not the same.
This study:
https://indo-european.eu/tag/u106/
suggests that R1B-U106 came in Scandinavia with IndoEuropean speakers, so with Vikings,sometimes before 2000 BC.
No idea if IndoEuropeans from Scadinavia were speaking protoGermanic in 2000 BC, or protoNorseGermanic or maybe an ancestor language of Germanic.
So R1b-U106 did not originated in Scandinavia,it came in South Scandinavia and on Norway coasts with the Vikings.
If R1B-U106 ancient carriers migrated to South Scadinavia and by boat,to the coasts of Norway and another part migrated to Central Europe,this would explain how a branch is found in Scandinavia and another branch in Central Europe.
If Lower Saxony and Netherlands are having both R1B-U106 branches, that would be quite interesting.
R1B-U106 suggests for me the existence of some proto-Celtic-Germanic-Romance language.
Norwegians,Swedes are calling Germans Tysk which means "related people".
This study suggests that the original homeland of protoGermanic people was somewhere in North Germany:
https://indo-european.eu/2019/07/european-hydrotoponymy-iii-from-old-european-to-palaeo-germanic-and-the-nordwestblock/
This theory would be supported with one more argument,if both branches of R1B-U106 are found in Lower Saxony and Netherlands.

Finn
01-01-2020, 01:25 PM
It seems that Finland has also a few R1B-U106.
Like 1% or so.
However, the data from different studies is not the same.
This study:
https://indo-european.eu/tag/u106/
suggests that R1B-U106 came in Scandinavia with IndoEuropean speakers, so with Vikings,sometimes before 2000 BC.
No idea if IndoEuropeans from Scadinavia were speaking protoGermanic in 2000 BC, or protoNorseGermanic or maybe an ancestor language of Germanic.
So R1b-U106 did not originated in Scandinavia,it came in South Scandinavia and on Norway coasts with the Vikings.
If R1B-U106 ancient carriers migrated to South Scadinavia and by boat,to the coasts of Norway and another part migrated to Central Europe,this would explain how a branch is found in Scandinavia and another branch in Central Europe.
Norwegians,Swedes are calling Germans Tysk which means "related people".

;) I also speak about (phonetically speaking): Düüts

You make it a little bit messy!
Vikings are from the early middle ages.
Germanics are an iron age 'product' mostly connected with the development of the Jastorf culture.

I see the connection between R1b U106 and the proto-Germanics as follows. In Wolfram Euler, Sprache und Herkunft der Germanen (Hamburg/London 2009) it's stated that based on name giving of places and rivers and so fort the cradle of the Germanic language/culture lays in central (middle) German area:west of the Elbe river, North of the Aller river and the Ore mountains; (add is nowadays: East Lower Saxony, Saxony-Anhalt). This is also the Unetice area. And later connected with Jastorf. So there is a (northern) Unetice and Jastorf overlap. So I guess you could say that Rb U106 was directly involved in the development of the proto-Germanic language/ culture.

The remarkable thing is that R1b U106 has had it's greatest impact in the Elp area (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elp_culture)(along the whole Southern North Sea Coast, from the IJssel in NE Dutch to Northern Jutland in Denmark). But the virulent nationalistic German archeologists like Sprockhoff or Schwantes never saw this as proto-Germanic but as "Urkeltentum" so proto-Celtic. I guess the most simple explanation is that they thought that Germanic "Urheimat" was in Scandinavia so the Elp culture could not be proto-Germanic, at least in their eyes ;)

On the other hand theories like the Northwestblock (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordwestblock) and some thoughts about the Cimbri (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cimbri) suggest that Elp area is in the twilight zone between "Germanic and Celtic".

Webb
01-01-2020, 03:52 PM
I’ve mentioned this before, but if you look at YFull you will see that I1 was formed 27000 ybp, but every single clade below I1 has a formed date of 4600 ybp, and there is a huge number of these clades. I don’t think this is a coincidence, if these dates are accurate. I think the explosion of the clades under I1 is a direct consequence of contact with U106. Whether it happened in Eastern Europe, then they both went to Scandinavia or it happened in Scandinavia after U106 arrived is hard to say.

mihaitzateo
01-01-2020, 04:58 PM
I’ve mentioned this before, but if you look at YFull you will see that I1 was formed 27000 ybp, but every single clade below I1 has a formed date of 4600 ybp, and there is a huge number of these clades. I don’t think this is a coincidence, if these dates are accurate. I think the explosion of the clades under I1 is a direct consequence of contact with U106. Whether it happened in Eastern Europe, then they both went to Scandinavia or it happened in Scandinavia after U106 arrived is hard to say.

Well I1 seems to be in Scandinavia and Finland from a lot of time before R1B-U106 came into Scandinania.
Vikings had 3 main branches of Y DNAs, one being R1B with mostly R1B-U106, another one being R1A with R1A-Z284 making most of it and I1 branches.
If R1B-U106 or R1A-Z284 came first in Scandinavia,is hard to say.

spruithean
01-01-2020, 05:02 PM
The oldest confirmed I1 sample in Scandinavia is that of oll009 which belongs to I1a-DF29. oll009 was found in a Scandinavian Middle Neolithic passage grave. That’s quite a bit younger than RISE98 R-U106.

There are some samples which are older IIRC but the sample quality isn’t good enough to provide definitive confirmation that they are I1 (not just M253, but supporting phyloequivalents).

mihaitzateo
01-01-2020, 05:11 PM
The oldest confirmed I1 sample in Scandinavia is that of oll009 which belongs to I1a-DF29. oll009 was found in a Scandinavian Middle Neolithic passage grave. That’s quite a bit younger than RISE98 R-U106.

There are some samples which are older IIRC but the sample quality isn’t good enough to provide definitive confirmation that they are I1 (not just M253, but supporting phyloequivalents).
Well, than the natives of Scandinavia that were there before R1B-U106 Germanics came, were N1 bearers?
Battle Axe/R1A-Z284 seems to be last to have come in Scandinavia.
And which is the most ancient R1b-U106 found in Scandinavia?
Because Rise98 is 2275 BC, most ancient.
Doubt that was no I1 in Scandinavia before 2275 BC.

spruithean
01-01-2020, 05:22 PM
Well, than the natives of Scandinavia that were there before R1B-U106 Germanics came, were N1 bearers?
Battle Axe/R1A-Z284 seems to be last to have come in Scandinavia.
And which is the most ancient R1b-U106 found in Scandinavia?
Because Rise98 is 2275 BC, most ancient.
Doubt that was no I1 in Scandinavia before 2275 BC.

I’m pretty sure they’ve determined that N came later into Scandinavia IIRC. I already said that RISE98 was older than oll009, I’m a little confused by what you mean to say.

We have potential I1 samples from Allentoft but because the sample quality is poor we cannot confirm that they are legitimate I1. For now we refer to the Allentoft samples as pre-I1.

Paul333
01-01-2020, 05:50 PM
It seems that Finland has also a few R1B-U106.
Like 1% or so.
However, the data from different studies is not the same.
This study:
https://indo-european.eu/tag/u106/
suggests that R1B-U106 came in Scandinavia with IndoEuropean speakers, so with Vikings,sometimes before 2000 BC.
No idea if IndoEuropeans from Scadinavia were speaking protoGermanic in 2000 BC, or protoNorseGermanic or maybe an ancestor language of Germanic.
So R1b-U106 did not originated in Scandinavia,it came in South Scandinavia and on Norway coasts with the Vikings.
If R1B-U106 ancient carriers migrated to South Scadinavia and by boat,to the coasts of Norway and another part migrated to Central Europe,this would explain how a branch is found in Scandinavia and another branch in Central Europe.
If Lower Saxony and Netherlands are having both R1B-U106 branches, that would be quite interesting.
R1B-U106 suggests for me the existence of some proto-Celtic-Germanic-Romance language.
Norwegians,Swedes are calling Germans Tysk which means "related people".
This study suggests that the original homeland of protoGermanic people was somewhere in North Germany:
https://indo-european.eu/2019/07/european-hydrotoponymy-iii-from-old-european-to-palaeo-germanic-and-the-nordwestblock/
This theory would be supported with one more argument,if both branches of R1B-U106 are found in Lower Saxony and Netherlands.

Regarding the phrase Tysk, Yorkshire people of Northern England are known as 'Tykes', it is an old dialect name. Barnsley Football club is also known as the Tykes.

Finn
01-01-2020, 06:21 PM
Hi Finn et al.,

I don't normally post on Anthrogenica (too much for me to keep up with), but I've been asked for my opinion.

I'd broadly agree with everything here up to the conclusion. I think the origin of R-U106 probably lies towards central Europe, but to put any one ancient DNA result at its centre is probably short-sighted. If you only take a small number of individuals dated 600 years after the foundation of the haplogroup, they are all going to be outliers in their own special ways, especially at a time of such major population upheaval. RISE98 has no living descendants, and Prague I7196 follows the R-Z156 bias towards the south-east of the R-U106 distribution.

The R-U106 founder is more closely related to the most ancient R-P312 DNA than he is to either RISE98 or Prague I7196, and the foundation of R-P312, R-U106 and R-S1194 are intimately tied together much more closely than they are to existing ancient DNA results. While R-P312 spread in a very different fashion, the origin of these three haplogroups is probably somewhere very culturally and geographically similar. So we should instead weight our discussion toward the R-L151 founder.

In all this, we are scrabbling around for scraps of data that can't really provide us with a firm conclusion. If I had to put an exact location to the origin of R-U106, I'd say somewhere around Rostock, but that's only a gut feeling - I don't think we have the data to be anything like that precise.

I recently discussed the spread of R-U106 sub-clades here:
https://groups.io/g/R1b-U106/message/637

Cheers,

Iain.

When I compare the link of Iain with the 'genetic landscape of the Netherlands' from Maarten Larmuseau and some knowledge of the Germanic migration I get this:

U198
Iain

R-S1688 is the parent of R-U198. The different way in which the R-U198 project runs may add some additional bias to the results, but we expect it to be relatively small. R-S1688 roughly tracks the same distribution as R-Z156, being common in north-western and north-central Europe. So it may share a very similar origin. However, is very strongly enhanced in the British Isles, particularly England, for reasons that aren't clear but probably have to do with relative founder effects.


Larmuseau:
https://www.mupload.nl/img/olk1q3w.13.27.png

Comment:
This looks a typical Saxon subclade, because we know that the Chauci already came in the Roman period to the most NE parts of Groningen and Drenthe.
See Nieuwhof: http://jalc.nl/cgi/t/text/get-pdfd43e.pdf?c=jalc;idno=0402a03
This probably explains the high frequency in England you mentioned Iain!

L48
Iain:

R-L48 is known to represent about half of R-U106, and we estimate it to be 52.8% of R-U106 here. This fraction is fairly stable over much of Europe, being slightly higher in eastern and central-eastern Europe, and slightly lower in Scandinavia. The distribution of R-L48 represents largely the middle ground between the extrema of R-Z18 and R-Z156/R-S1688, and is largely similar to R-S1194. This suggests geo-cultural continuity through the period between R-L151 and R-L48, which should be a matter of only a few centuries. Its relatively low frequency in Scandinavia shows that we can't think of R-L48 descendants as regionalising into Germanic people's yet - that's about 2000 years too early - and we are still likely looking at a continental origin for R-L48. Consequently, I would expect the origins of R-L48 to lie in the Single Grave culture or wider Corded Ware culture as well.


Larmuseau:
https://www.mupload.nl/img/c6o74kr.png

Comment:
Looks a typical (West) Frisian subclade in the Dutch context. It is known that a part of the incoming Germanic people came from Jutland this could explain this subclade? Or even more: is this is an old Frisia residu connected to the SGC population? Because t's especially high in the area above Amsterdam that was not subject of an Anglo-Saxon immigration.

See Nicolay:
https://www.academia.edu/35420221/Odin_in_Friesland._Scandinavian_influences_in_the_ southern_North_Sea_area_during_the_Migration_and_E arly_Merovingian_periods

And in Dutch but the illustrations are in this respect very clear:

https://www.academia.edu/9823346/Nieuwe_bewoners_van_het_terpengebied_en_hun_rol_bi j_de_opkomst_van_Fries_Koninschap._De_betekenis_va n_gouden_bracteaten_en_bracteaatachtige_hangers_ui t_Friesland_vijfde-zevende_eeuw_

L47
Iain:

Within R-L48, R-L47 is notable for its high frequency in eastern Europe. While it represents around 10% of European R-U106, it represents about 43% of the tests in eastern Europe and about 20% of the tests in south-eastern Europe. The origin of these eastern European clades appears tied to the eastern Germanic expansion, ultimately culminating in the Gothic sack of the Roman Empire. However, R-L47 much older than this migration and is found throughout Europe at generic frequencies of 5-10%.


Larmuseau:
https://www.mupload.nl/img/ans3bxihy15qp.13.15.png

Comment:
This puzzles me because this seems high in a small part of NE Dutch, so ad first more Saxon like....but not sure is there another tribe in the game?....a 'Gothic' expansion to NE Dutch as Iain seems to suggest? Anyone?

Finn
01-01-2020, 07:48 PM
Ane an add for L48, I guess this one that Iain associates with SGC or CW in a wider context could well be rooted in Unetice. Because it's high in the area that was not subject of the Anglo-Saxon invasion.

Z18 not displayed in the Larmuseau research could well be associated with the Jutes, corresponding with the papers of Nicolay.....

JonikW
01-01-2020, 09:34 PM
When I compare the link of Iain with the 'genetic landscape of the Netherlands' from Maarten Larmuseau and some knowledge of the Germanic migration I get this:

U198
Iain


Larmuseau:
https://www.mupload.nl/img/olk1q3w.13.27.png

Comment:
This looks a typical Saxon subclade, because we know that the Chauci already came in the Roman period to the most NE parts of Groningen and Drenthe.
See Nieuwhof: http://jalc.nl/cgi/t/text/get-pdfd43e.pdf?c=jalc;idno=0402a03
This probably explains the high frequency in England you mentioned Iain!

L48
Iain:


Larmuseau:
https://www.mupload.nl/img/c6o74kr.png

Comment:
Looks a typical (West) Frisian subclade in the Dutch context. It is known that a part of the incoming Germanic people came from Jutland this could explain this subclade? Or even more: is this is an old Frisia residu connected to the SGC population? Because t's especially high in the area above Amsterdam that was not subject of an Anglo-Saxon immigration.

See Nicolay:
https://www.academia.edu/35420221/Odin_in_Friesland._Scandinavian_influences_in_the_ southern_North_Sea_area_during_the_Migration_and_E arly_Merovingian_periods

And in Dutch but the illustrations are in this respect very clear:

https://www.academia.edu/9823346/Nieuwe_bewoners_van_het_terpengebied_en_hun_rol_bi j_de_opkomst_van_Fries_Koninschap._De_betekenis_va n_gouden_bracteaten_en_bracteaatachtige_hangers_ui t_Friesland_vijfde-zevende_eeuw_

L47
Iain:


Larmuseau:
https://www.mupload.nl/img/ans3bxihy15qp.13.15.png

Comment:
This puzzles me because this seems high in a small part of NE Dutch, so ad first more Saxon like....but not sure is there another tribe in the game?....a 'Gothic' expansion to NE Dutch as Iain seems to suggest? Anyone?

Interesting post Finn. R-L47's frequency in both the NE Netherlands and eastern Europe looks like an unsolvable problem to me when you consider known and possible movements into and out of what were to become the Saxon lands, not least involving the Longobards and their hangers on.

The Friesland square-headed brooch study that you linked to sums up for me exactly why artefact styles can be a valuable tool when pondering haplogroup movements like this. Thanks for posting it.

This passage from the paper is one of many that I enjoyed for what it implies:

"In the late 5th and first half of the 6th century, the gold bracteates are produced in a typically Scandinavian style; only minor elements, like the human hands and feet on the type D bracteates, can be seen as regional, ‘Frisian’ traits. In the 6th century, the newly found ‘Jutlandic’ brooch was still executed in a Scandinavian style, but now as part of a southern group of ornaments – found in Kent and southern Germany."

Michał
01-01-2020, 10:45 PM
This puzzles me because this seems high in a small part of NE Dutch, so ad first more Saxon like....but not sure is there another tribe in the game?....a 'Gothic' expansion to NE Dutch as Iain seems to suggest? Anyone?
I suspect that what Iain had in mind was that both L47 and L48 are much older than the migrations of the Early Germanic peoples, so both these clades could have been already present (at quite decent frequencies) among the Proto-Germanic people, ie. before the territorial expansion of the Early Germanic (Jastorf-derived) subpopulations started. Consequently, both L48 and L47 could have substantially contributed to migrations directed toward very different regions, for example to migrations directed both east (or south-east, eg. with the Vandals or Goths) and west (or south-west, eg. with the Franks or Anglo-Saxons). Only those subclades of L48 and L47 that are estimated to have a TMRCA age of less than about 2000 years should be expected to have been specifically associated with Early Germanic migrations directed only eastward or only westward. This also means that the Proto-Germanic population was likely quite thoroughly mixed, with most major subclades of U106 being present in nearly all subpopulations that were later transformed into separate Early Germanic tribes, although there is no doubt that some regional differences (regarding the proportions of those major subclades) did exist in Jastorf, so this is one of the reasons (in addition to the bottleneck efect in target populations) why we see similar differences in modern populations descending (in part) from those Proto-Germanic (or Early Germanic) people.

For example, one of my distant ancestors from Poland (or, more specifically, one of my 6th great grandfathers) belonged to the specifically Polish (or Central-Eastern European) subclade Z17913 (Y6453 in YFull) deep under L47 (here is my Google map for Z17913: https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid=10sY2yicv7zfEtmQTWKfKSotAKfe6ZeAw&ll=53.776888710102746%2C24.718294734375036&z=4). The TMRCA age for Z17913 is about 1500 years (according to YFull) or about 1800 years (according to my own estimates), and it diverged from its most closely related "British" brother clade FGC17294 (A6093 in YFull) about 1800 years ago (according to YFull) or about 2100 years ago (according to my own estimates). All this suggests that the parental clade FGC17304 (ancestral to both the "Polish" subclade Z17913 and the "British" subclade FGC17294) was born within the broadly defined Proto-Germanic homeland (most likely somewhere in a region encompassing Northern Germany and Denmark) in a relatively distant past (2700 years ago according to YFull, 3200 years ago according to my own estimates), while its two major descending sublineages (pre-Z17913 and pre-FGC17294) diverged about 2100-1800 years ago and were later included into at least two Early Germanic tribes migrating in very different directions, ie. either south-east (towards Poland, most likely with the Vandals or Goths) or west (towards England, most likely with the Jutes, Angles or Saxons).

Curleyprow
04-22-2020, 02:27 PM
Wing states:

"Of the 13 Z156+ results (which include DF96 & DF98) 3 are in England (the two Roman Gladiators in York and a Viking buried at Oxford University) with 1 found in Denmark and the another one in Sweden. The other 8 are found in Central Europe, spread between Spain (I10895) and Szolad, Hungary.

There are a scattering of Z381 & Z18 results found outside of Scandinavia, but it is clear where the bulk of these clades are found in Scandinavia (and England which could be explained by the Germanic and Viking settlements on the Island)."

It is not clear what your hypothesis is because you have actually stated an hypothesis in any formal sense in your hypothetical commentary. However, your comment above seems somewhat fanciful. Of the 13 Z 156 + ,3 are in England with one a Viking and two Roman gladiators, yet 8 are found in Europe. In other words, two thirds of the samples are European (66.6%) and only 3 (33.3%) in England. You go so far as to say, that of these three discovered specimens 2 were Roman gladiators and the other a Viking. How come when the vast majority of samples discovered point to Europe?

Capitalis
08-03-2020, 02:00 AM
Yes, but the diversity of R1B-U106 in North America is clearly higher than in Australia.

In North America was a lot of German, Scandinavian, English migration.

However, I think that the diversity of R1B-U106 is still higher in Netherlands, than in North America.

From the FTDNA haplotree:

~34,500 members list UK/Ireland as their Y-DNA ancestor's homeland (I guess most will be American).
~9,000 list Scandinavia (including Finland).
~8,000 list Germany.
~5,500 list USA.
~1,000 list Netherlands.
375 list Belgium. :(

But even if we only look at the U106 diversity for the 5,500 Americans, it is equal to Germany, England and combined Scandinavia. If we had more Dutch testers I think the Netherlands would have an equal diversity as well.

38864

Capitalis
08-03-2020, 01:24 PM
All dates are from Yfull; I'm aware that there are other estimates available.

Two main sons of R-BY30097:

R-U106 > Z2265 (99.9%) > BY30097 (99.8%) > Z381 (84.8%)

38886

R-U106 > Z2265 (99.9%) > BY30097 (99.8%) > Z18 (12.7%) Diversifies 800 years later than his brother.

38887


Two main sons of R-Z381:

R-U106 > Z2265 (99.9%) > BY30097 (99.8%) > Z381 (84.8%) > Z301 (76.1%)

38888

R-U106 > Z2265 (99.9%) > BY30097 (99.8%) > Z381 (84.8%) > Z156 (23.7%) Diversifies 400 years later than his brother.

38889

Capitalis
08-03-2020, 02:21 PM
To tie in with Mr Wing's thread here, and as I'm also downstream of R-Z156, I'll use my own line as an example to support Mr Wing's opening post which was possibly misinterpreted; these things happen on forums but I don't think this thread was an attempt to make R-Z156 celtic.

If you look at the R-Z156 map at the bottom of my previous post, with a roughly equal amount of modern testers at FTDNA hailing from Scandinavia and Germany, R-Z156 looks more diverse in Germany than in Scandinavia. I won't comment on the Isles as there are ~4x as many testers from there compared to Scandinavia and Germany.

Moving on.


The main great grandson of R-Z156:

R-U106 > Z2265 (99.9%) > BY30097 (99.8%) > Z381 (84.8%) > Z156 (23.7%) > Z306 (90.0%) > Z307 (99.6%) > Z304 (99.8%)

38894

R-Z304 looks more diverse in France-Germany than in Scandinavia.


A grandson of R-Z304:

R-U106 > Z2265 (99.9%) > BY30097 (99.8%) > Z381 (84.8%) > Z156 (23.7%) > Z306 (90.0%) > Z307 (99.6%) > Z304 (99.8%) > BY12480 (58.8%) > DF96 (95.5%)

38895

Again, R-DF96 looks more diverse in France-Germany than in Scandinavia.


One of the two main sons of R-DF96:

R-U106 > Z2265 (99.9%) > BY30097 (99.8%) > Z381 (84.8%) > Z156 (23.7%) > Z306 (90.0%) > Z307 (99.6%) > Z304 (99.8%) > BY12480 (58.8%) > DF96 (95.5%) > S11515 (62.9%)

38896

To me, this is the beginning of my lineage's retreat north.


A grandson of R-S11515:

R-U106 > Z2265 (99.9%) > BY30097 (99.8%) > Z381 (84.8%) > Z156 (23.7%) > Z306 (90.0%) > Z307 (99.6%) > Z304 (99.8%) > BY12480 (58.8%) > DF96 (95.5%) > S11515 (62.9%) > FGC8410 (31.0%) > S15663 (94.4%)

38897

Here, the lineage has fully retreated north.


So I don't understand why we say that we can't learn from modern distributions. If we ignore the Isles due to the skewed sampling, I think we can make some sense of the different strands of U106.

EDIT: I've fixed the images (I hope).

Bollox79
08-04-2020, 06:51 AM
To tie in with Mr Wing's thread here, and as I'm also downstream of R-Z156, I'll use my own line as an example to support Mr Wing's opening post which was possibly misinterpreted; these things happen on forums but I don't think this thread was an attempt to make R-Z156 celtic.

If you look at the R-Z156 map at the bottom of my previous post, with a roughly equal amount of modern testers at FTDNA hailing from Scandinavia and Germany, R-Z156 looks more diverse in Germany than in Scandinavia. I won't comment on the Isles as there are ~4x as many testers from there compared to Scandinavia and Germany.

Moving on.


The main great grandson of R-Z156:

R-U106 > Z2265 (99.9%) > BY30097 (99.8%) > Z381 (84.8%) > Z156 (23.7%) > Z306 (90.0%) > Z307 (99.6%) > Z304 (99.8%)

38894

R-Z304 looks more diverse in France-Germany than in Scandinavia.


A grandson of R-Z304:

R-U106 > Z2265 (99.9%) > BY30097 (99.8%) > Z381 (84.8%) > Z156 (23.7%) > Z306 (90.0%) > Z307 (99.6%) > Z304 (99.8%) > BY12480 (58.8%) > DF96 (95.5%)

38895

Again, R-DF96 looks more diverse in France-Germany than in Scandinavia.


One of the two main sons of R-DF96:

R-U106 > Z2265 (99.9%) > BY30097 (99.8%) > Z381 (84.8%) > Z156 (23.7%) > Z306 (90.0%) > Z307 (99.6%) > Z304 (99.8%) > BY12480 (58.8%) > DF96 (95.5%) > S11515 (62.9%)

38896

To me, this is the beginning of my lineage's retreat north.


A grandson of R-S11515:

R-U106 > Z2265 (99.9%) > BY30097 (99.8%) > Z381 (84.8%) > Z156 (23.7%) > Z306 (90.0%) > Z307 (99.6%) > Z304 (99.8%) > BY12480 (58.8%) > DF96 (95.5%) > S11515 (62.9%) > FGC8410 (31.0%) > S15663 (94.4%)

38897

Here, the lineage has fully retreated north.


So I don't understand why we say that we can't learn from modern distributions. If we ignore the Isles due to the skewed sampling, I think we can make some sense of the different strands of U106.

EDIT: I've fixed the images (I hope).

Nice breakdown of the percentages ;-).

Yeah from what I know of my group DF98 and subgroups and discussion with Dr. Iain - I think a possible hotspot for DF98 and subgroups is around the Rhine and parts of modern day France in a time period (keeping in mind the age of S1911 under DF98) that was before the Germanic tribes came south correct? So they could have been something else before speaking German (if we find those SNPs in samples in the Iron Age - and if we don't find them maybe they were up north first and came down later etc). I know for now we have possible Elp culture tumulus in Frisia who is Z381 and that is middle bronze age - all the other stuff is late Roman period or later - so we really need samples that fall in the middle BA to Iron age/early Roman period from that area of the Rhine/France in my opinion to see if these SNPs are or are not there at that time if possible. Then test the Migration period remains as well!

With enough aDNA samples of good quality I think we might actually be able to answer those questions...

P.S. I have read a couple papers on the Boii - and while those guys around Munich including Mr. Altheim - DF96 - "came" from Bohemia and were labelled Baiuvarii - I am not convinced that they were the original inhabitants who migrated out as they are associated with that pottery that came from the NW up about the Elbe I believe they said - well I suppose they could have been locals (and therefore Boii/Volcae?) that were absorbed by incoming Germanic tribes - or they came with the Germanic tribes themselves (along with the Z305 and DF96 SNPs)... the Volcae were recorded as sharing a lot of similarities with the Germanic tribes north of them in the Boii time period - reminds me of the Batavians or those Germanics around the Rhine or East of there and had already made it over the river in the Batavian time period... maybe the answer lies somewhere in there. That project that is going to examine 6,000 samples concerning the Eastern Migration period stuff should help a lot!

Capitalis
08-25-2020, 10:50 AM
Yeah from what I know of my group DF98 and subgroups and discussion with Dr. Iain - I think a possible hotspot for DF98 and subgroups is around the Rhine and parts of modern day France in a time period (keeping in mind the age of S1911 under DF98) that was before the Germanic tribes came south correct? So they could have been something else before speaking German (if we find those SNPs in samples in the Iron Age - and if we don't find them maybe they were up north first and came down later etc).

Yes, it's clear that the numerous U106 lines didn't march around together hand-in-hand from 2600 BCE to 400 CE. Long before the Migration Period, some U106 lines seem more France-Benelux-Germany oriented rather than Nordic. Mine seems to have migrated north from France-Benelux-Germany into Scandinavia during the Nordic Bronze Age, so ultimately I have no problem with my line being called Germanic. I do think this raises interesting questions as to why my line went north, which cultural influences it might have carried north, etc.


With enough aDNA samples of good quality I think we might actually be able to answer those questions...

Me too.


P.S. I have read a couple papers on the Boii - and while those guys around Munich including Mr. Altheim - DF96 - "came" from Bohemia and were labelled Baiuvarii - I am not convinced that they were the original inhabitants who migrated out as they are associated with that pottery that came from the NW up about the Elbe I believe they said - well I suppose they could have been locals (and therefore Boii/Volcae?) that were absorbed by incoming Germanic tribes - or they came with the Germanic tribes themselves (along with the Z305 and DF96 SNPs)... the Volcae were recorded as sharing a lot of similarities with the Germanic tribes north of them in the Boii time period - reminds me of the Batavians or those Germanics around the Rhine or East of there and had already made it over the river in the Batavian time period... maybe the answer lies somewhere in there. That project that is going to examine 6,000 samples concerning the Eastern Migration period stuff should help a lot!

I assumed all of those samples were recent migrants from Northern Germany, just based on their autosomal profile.

As a thought experiment, I don't see a reason why Germanic DF96 lines from Northern Germany couldn't have expanded on post-Celtic (Romano-Germans, or whatever) DF96 lines from Southern Germany during the Migration Period. DF96 split circa 1700 BCE. Modern Swiss and Southern Germans look like a fairly even mix of ancient "northern" Germanic samples and ancient MBA/IA/Roman samples from Switzerland/Southern Germany (which are modern Northern Italian-like).

39150

I don't believe Big Y testing existed in 400 CE for "northern" and "southern" DF96 groups to realise they should have joined hands in one big U106 happy family, rather than one overrunning the other. ;)

Finn
08-29-2021, 05:38 PM
IMO breaking news for early R1b U106. The early Corded Ware finding in Bohemia puts R1b U106 in a more defined context.

A recent posting of Iain Mc Donald with imo a good analysis.


Charlie Weaver put me onto this this morning, and I stuck a post on Anthrogenica about it. I'll adapt that here, but overall I can't stress enough how significant this burial is for R-U106 as a whole.

In short, there is an R-U106 ancient DNA sample from a Corded Ware Culture burial in Plotiště nad Labem, which is about 60 miles east of Prague, just opposite the tattoo shop. The burial was dug up in the 1960s and has been dated to between 2914 BC and 2879 BC, and is of an adult male, aged 25-30. Consequently, we are looking at the foundation of R-U106 being pushed back to before 2900 BC. This is unlikely to be the R-U106 common ancestor himself, and probably not even someone who knew him, but we are clearly looking at one of his close descendants. The TMRCA for R-U106 can't be pushed more than a few centuries before this.

Simultaneously, there is an R-L151 ancient DNA sample from another early Corded Ware Culture burial at Obříství (behind the toy shop), which is just north of Prague. First published in 2011, it is newly dated between 2911 BC and 2875 BC, and is of an adult male, aged 35-50.

Both Plotiště nad Labem (PNL001 and Obříství (OBR003) are right-sided crouched burials with their heads towards the north-west. Their only other R-U106 result is our man in Prague-Jinotice from the Unetice culture. They don't appear to have attempted typing below R-U106 for either burial. Another sample (Konobrže_26A/91, ~2900-2500 BC) is R-L151xP312, but without coverage for R-U106. Other early R-L151 burials include:

VLI011 (2881-2669 BC) xU106, xP312

VLI015 (2881-2669 BC) xU106, xP312

KO1002 (2835-2485 BC) xU106, xP312

STD002 (2882-2673 BC) xP312, xU106

VLI085 (2862-2576 BC) xU106, no coverage at P312

VLI092 (2882-2669 BC) xP312, xU106

Consequently, we are looking at a sizeable, established population of R-L151 in Bohemia during the early part of the Corded Ware Culture probably well before 2700 BC. R-L151 probably predates R-U106 by between 50 and 200 years.

So we are probably talking about ~3000 BC for R-U106 and ~3100 BC for R-L151. There's the possibility to stretch these dates perhaps 2-3 centuries further back in time without too much problem, but beyond that you start to stretch the limits of TMRCAs from modern Y-DNA and you would start to expect both more downstream clades identified in (post-)CWC remains and more basal R-L151/R-U106 clades found in modern populations further east.

Now comes the opinion part. These two results are earlier than just about anyone expected any R-L151 and indeed R-U106 results. They impart big changes to the origin story of R-L151.

Previously, the earliest attested R-L151 burial was circa 2550 BC from the upper Danube (R-U152, Bell Beaker), and the previous R-U106 burials were either our Prazan Unetice fellow, RISE98, or Lille Beddinge in the southern tip of Sweden - both from some time near 2200 BC. This pushes our R-U106 ancestry back most of a millennium to close to its foundation, meaning we can rule out any ideas of R-L151 and R-U106 not taking part in the first stages of the Corded Ware Culture. While R-L151 is later mostly found in western Europe (regions occupied by the Bell Beaker Culture [R-P312] and Single Grave Culture [R-U106]), these dates now places the foundation of R-L151 right at the start of the CWC, and significantly further east.

Another alternative hypothesis - that R-L151 and R-L52 were in western Europe before the Corded Ware Culture but had yet to be sampled - doesn't seem supported by the absence of R-L52 among pre-CWC European Y-DNA, which is now substantial, or by the autosomal DNA of these newly published burials. These new R-L151 CWC burials from Bohemia have a high fraction of autosomal DNA from the Eurasian steppe. This fraction is consistently high in the early-CWC men, and high in 10 out of the 14 early-CWC women. Hence, we can tie the first presence of R-L151 in Europe to the influx of a male-dominated DNA of steppe origin.

Hence, I suspect we can date and place the initial R-U106 starburst somewhere close to the Czech Republic. It has to be slightly older than 2900 BC, by implication it potentially began even further east. That then implies that R-L151 and R-L52 most likely formed in the "old" country to the east, but the absence of any basal clades of R-L151 or R-L52 in eastern Europe or western Asia means that they can't have been there long or built up a large population before their emigration. At the time, R-L52 was a small family branch, rather than an overbearing empire like the R-Z2105-dominated Yamnaya culture. Our ancestors were probably one of the hangers-on, and perhaps from a culture that hasn't been well-sampled yet.

The placement and timings also (weakly) suggest to me a migration over the north of the Carpathian mountains, rather than south up the Danube, as other have posited (Eupedia is a high-profile example). This is a point I've never been quite sure on, but the north migration has always made more sense to me, and I think this adds to that evidence.

So where does that leave us? This doesn't change the overall picture, namely that our ancestors migrated from the steppelands of easternmost Europe (the former USSR countries) to Europe in the Corded Ware Culture, in a wave of migration that began shortly before 2900 BC and reached the Atlantic shortly after 2700 BC. It doesn't change the fact that our ancestors then stayed in central Europe or migrated to Scandinavia, while our R-P312 brethren formed the Bell Beaker reflux and expanded to the British Isles, Iberia, Bavaria and the Italian peninsula. What it does change are the relation of the individual haplogroups to that chronology.

This is my take on the chronology. A lot of it is interpretive, so it doesn't come with much scientific rigour. A lot of it is gut feeling and subject to moderate change, even as we unravel more about the implications of these burials. The broad dates probably lie very close to the central estimates from my 2016 work:

http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~mcdonald/genetics/table.html

The R-M269 to R-L151 chronology is still nebulous. R-L151 now probably formed between about 3300 BC and 3000 BC, and I suspect somewhere around 3100 BC, probably somewhere in the broad steppelands of easternmost Europe. Very speculatively, we might be talking about one family within a village, or a clan forming a single village, that might have been part of a wider sub-culture with loose association with the Sredny Stog culture (the culture immediately predating the Yamnaya). For whatever reason, this family or clan decided to move westwards. We don't know that reason, but it has been previously linked to the spread of the plague (Y. pestis) to Europe - our ancestors might have been fleeing the instability it caused, or were taking advantage of its effects in Europe, or both. However, our family grew rapidly from this point and for the next several centuries.

R-U106 probably formed some time between about 3200 BC and 2950 BC. I suspect somewhere close to 3050 BC. Depending on the exact time, it may already have been present in the initial migrant population, or our R-U106 ancestor may have been born during this migration period. Either way, it formed before the Corded Ware A horizon swept much of Europe, so it was early on in the migration.

I suspect that the first few generations of R-L151 remained tied together at the start, but that they parted ways somewhere very close to the Czech Republic, around 2900 BC. The first indication of geographical differences we see in R-U106 is R-Z156, and we have a descendant R-Z156 as part of the Unetice Culture appearing later in that millennium in Prague itself. So I suspect the nascent R-Z156 and the ancestors of R-S1688 (and its downstream R-U198) were left to their own devices in what is now the Czech Republic, while most of the rest of R-L151 kept pushing west. This is very approximate, because we don't sample many of the surrounding nations well.

In that westward expansion, I suspect that the ancestors of R-Z18 took the most northerly passage, ending up in the Battle Axe culture of southern Scandinavia. R-P312 probably took a more southernly passage to the Rhine Valley, and from there to the Atlantic and north-western Mediterranean coasts. Most of the rest of R-L48, many of the minor R-U106 clades, and probably our smaller brother R-S1194, probably ended up somewhere around the Single Grave culture of north-west continental Europe, especially in the regions around northern and central Germany. However, they seem to have stayed east of the P312-dominated Rhine valley until the demise of the Bell Beaker culture (~1800 BC). This R-P312 versus R-U106xP312 boundary therefore largely reflects the geographic split between the Nordic and Atlantic Bronze Ages, with a more complicated situation occurring inland.

The effects of this earlier chronology on downstream clades need some further thought. The influence here is likely to be less, as the dates don't become much more precise, and don't change as much. However, the metallurgical links supplanted from the late Unetice Culture into the early Nordic Bronze Age in the period leading up to 1700 BC probably deserve some extra attention. Clades like R-L47 could become important in this role if the timings can be made to work. Equally, this could be a source of the sporadic R-Z156 results we see scattered throughout Scandinavia that I've never got my head quite around. So there is a lot to think on.

Today's results have shown how fragile this kind of interpretation can be. Even a little data can significantly alter these chronologies. So the above shouldn't be taken as gospel - merely an interpretive view of how things stand; the most likely possibility, if you will, which could be different again tomorrow as new data comes forward, as new TMRCA calculations are made, or as we (and I in particular) learn more about the archaeological links involved.


https://groups.io/g/R1b-U106/message/4822?p=,,,20,0,0,0::Created,,Nordic+Bronze+Age,20, 2,0,85166005

This fits in (archeological) picture of Jockenhövel (2013):


In Germany, as an integral part of central Europe, there are numerous cultural manifestations in the EBA, which, although having their own regionally specific character, when taken average rich single graves and their associated together show distinct common features. These are evident in the appearance of above-votive depositions and hoards with new kinds of ceremonial weapons, such as solid-hilted daggers (Vollgriffdolche) and halberds, as well as various kinds of axe. From this it can be inferred that around 2000–1800 bc a leading social group (‘chieftains’) emerged, in farming communities that stretched from the lower Danube to southern Scandinavia, the south of England (Wessex culture), and Brittany, and were in close contact with one another. Their common features are evident not only on the physical level, as seen cross-regionally in very similar object forms and burial rites, but also in the spread of new technologies, like the introduction of tin-bronze, and the advent of complex metalworking techniques. EBA cultural groups are like ‘islands’ in central Europe, particularly near important deposits of copper, tin, and salt. Between these ‘islands’ are wide stretches of land that still continued in the Late Neolithic tradition. The most distinctive culture group is the Aunjetitz or Únětice culture (named after Únětice near Prague) (2300–2200 to 1600–1500 bc). Of more than just regional significance, this culture spreads from the middle Danube (south-west Slovakia, northern Lower Austria) across Moravia and Bohemia to central Germany, and as far away as Silesia and Great Poland.


Bridge: an EBA woman called the bride or princess of Fallingbostel, Lüneberger heath Lower Saxony in middle Danubian dress!! She belonged to the so called Sögel-Wohlde culture.

https://i.postimg.cc/kV5h2w9h/Fallingbostel.png (https://postimg.cc/kV5h2w9h)

Again Jockenhövel (2013):


The Sögel-Wohlde culture leads to a distinct cultural development that spreads from the eastern lowlands across Westphalia to Jutland. It is characterized particularly by inhumations in burial mounds and at this stage—unlike the contemporaneous Tumulus culture of central Europe—is only known from male graves. They are identified by their grave goods: short swords or daggers, flanged axes, heart-shaped flint arrowheads, pins, and occasionally small rings formed of spirally wound gold wire.
The Rastorf (east Holstein) burial mound, raised over a megalithic grave, represents a short-lived development at the start of the Nordic Bronze Age. The oldest male grave with its triangular dagger belongs to the EBA; above it there is an early solid-hilted sword (of Sögel or Apa type); the latest burial contains a Wohlde short sword.



An add to Iain Mc Donald I guess we most not forget, this sample:
1881–1646 calBCE, Early Bronze Age, 1900-1700 B.C., De Tuithoorn, Oostwoud, Noord-Holland (West Frisia), I4070, U106 > Z381. This is Sögel-Wohlde time and area.

As far as I know DF98 is his offshoot (but correct me If I'm wrong).

https://i.postimg.cc/wM1f0Chw/Schermafbeelding-2021-08-29-om-10-22-30.png (https://postimg.cc/sGR420HW)

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330755097_The_Y-SNP_Z-381_Is_a_Patrilineal_DNA_Marker_of_the_Royal_Bourb on_Family_of_France

S21 spread in general, we can also see a stardust nodus in Czech?
https://i.postimg.cc/nrTm9rs5/Schermafbeelding-2021-08-29-om-10-27-45.png (https://postimg.cc/fSty6wfj)


Z381 (offshoot D98) is much more restricted to Sögel-Wohlde area:
https://i.postimg.cc/rmkRhxx3/Schermafbeelding-2021-08-29-om-10-28-31.png (https://postimg.cc/kVT5GVjv)

So I guess Unetice related people spread in EBA R1b U106 lines to the North Sea Coast, the Sögel-Wohlde culture is the hub for a spread in Nordic Bronze Age time.....

Imo it's no coincidence that the area of Sögel-Wohlde and the hotspot area of R1b U106 resemble each other. Compare the picture above with this one of Kuzmenko (2011) Sögel-Wohlde in red:

https://i.postimg.cc/Fz5T59kB/Kuzmenko-2011.png (https://postimg.cc/ftCcYQKc)

So Sögel-Wohlde warriors, Unetice derived, most probably have caused a R1b U106 founder effect.....

Finn
08-30-2021, 12:31 PM
Some extended explanation here:
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?23743-How-far-has-Central-European-Bronze-and-Iron-Ages-pushed-to-the-North&p=796462&viewfull=1#post796462

Pylsteen
08-30-2021, 01:45 PM
I haven't examined U106 much; one or more expansions downstream from the Elbe seem likely. Still, there are unbelievably few ancient U106 up to date! They seem to have been a minority in early CWC and also in Unetice, which seems largely a mixture of R1a/I2/R1b-P312 at the moment.

Dewsloth
08-30-2021, 04:21 PM
I haven't examined U106 much; one or more expansions downstream from the Elbe seem likely. Still, there are unbelievably few ancient U106 up to date! They seem to have been a minority in early CWC and also in Unetice, which seems largely a mixture of R1a/I2/R1b-P312 at the moment.

Like I said in a different post:

So the core could be:
A. In a place nobody has looked yet; and/or
B. In a place where sample preservation is unlikely (see acidic soils)

Finn
08-30-2021, 05:33 PM
Like I said in a different post:

So the core could be:
A. In a place nobody has looked yet; and/or
B. In a place where sample preservation is unlikely (see acidic soils)

In Dutch we say "dat is een waarheid als een koe" (that's a truth like a cow hahahaha)

Some things we know for sure: we will never have a complete view.....there are always lacking samples....nevertheless with the bits and pieces we do have we are able to make (tentative) reconstructions....I guess we don't have an alternative.

Finn
09-11-2021, 01:22 PM
EBA R1b U106 spread from the Unetice/middle Danubian area!?


From current data Larmuseau (2019), in combination with the view of Iain Mc Donald from late august.

In general we see that R1b U106 is a coastal thing, no surprise because either SGC or Unetice when the Elbe is the entre a spread by boat is more assumable than a road true marsh and peat land without roads.

https://i.postimg.cc/FdTcGGDx/Schermafbeelding-2021-09-11-om-08-46-23.png (https://postimg.cc/FdTcGGDx)


My assumption is that Sögel Warriors (Unetice/ Middle Danubian derived) brought in some R1b U106 lines. Unfortunately Larmuseau offers only a selection. But ok with the info of Iain it will do.
Elp or Sögel-Wohlde has basically only affected the outmost NE part of the Netherlands, I put a star in Drouwen, the most important Sögel grave of the North German Plain.

Wiki:
https://i.postimg.cc/ThVdghNt/Schermafbeelding-2021-09-11-om-09-35-47.png (https://postimg.cc/ThVdghNt)

Zoom in R-L47

Iain:

However, the metallurgical links supplanted from the late Unetice Culture into the early Nordic Bronze Age in the period leading up to 1700 BC probably deserve some extra attention. Clades like R-L47 could become important in this role if the timings can be made to work. Equally, this could be a source of the sporadic R-Z156 results we see scattered throughout Scandinavia that I've never got my head quite around. So there is a lot to think on.


https://i.postimg.cc/vx90Kpks/Schermafbeelding-2021-09-11-om-08-46-46.png (https://postimg.cc/vx90Kpks)

Zoom in R-U198

Iain

I suspect that the first few generations of R-L151 remained tied together at the start, but that they parted ways somewhere very close to the Czech Republic, around 2900 BC. The first indication of geographical differences we see in R-U106 is R-Z156, and we have a descendant R-Z156 as part of the Unetice Culture appearing later in that millennium in Prague itself. So I suspect the nascent R-Z156 and the ancestors of R-S1688 (and its downstream R-U198) were left to their own devices in what is now the Czech Republic, while most of the rest of R-L151 kept pushing west. This is very approximate, because we don't sample many of the surrounding nations well.


https://i.postimg.cc/3yKzvJ6D/Schermafbeelding-2021-09-11-om-08-46-36.png (https://postimg.cc/3yKzvJ6D)

So fare the Sherlock Holmes micro-region research.......