Bygdedweller
01-13-2021, 09:42 PM
Margaryan et. al from 2019 contained a great deal of new samples that are Z18 which I haven't seen discussed here:
https://dna-explained.com/2020/09/18/442-ancient-viking-skeletons-hold-dna-surprises-does-your-y-or-mitochondrial-dna-match-daily-updates-here/
Interesting to see it popping up everywhere from the Isle of Man, Dorset, Oxford, Orkney, Western Sweden to Northern Norway.
From prior I know of SZ4 from the Lombard-burials at Szólád, which was also derived for Z18. Interestingly the sample seems to have distinctly North European ancestry, probably in the extreme range of what was present in the Lombards. It was also deemed an outlier in the isotopic analysis. This does jive well with Z18 being somewhat of a North Germanic marker (perhaps specifically Norwegian/Swedish) originally.
From the Viking-study I noticed VK418, dated to the Iron Age around the year 350 CE, is also derived for R-Z18 according to Estes, which would mean it is the earliest Z18 found so far I believe? It was present here as far North as Engelřya in Northern Norway.
https://dna-explained.com/2020/09/18/442-ancient-viking-skeletons-hold-dna-surprises-does-your-y-or-mitochondrial-dna-match-daily-updates-here/
Interesting to see it popping up everywhere from the Isle of Man, Dorset, Oxford, Orkney, Western Sweden to Northern Norway.
From prior I know of SZ4 from the Lombard-burials at Szólád, which was also derived for Z18. Interestingly the sample seems to have distinctly North European ancestry, probably in the extreme range of what was present in the Lombards. It was also deemed an outlier in the isotopic analysis. This does jive well with Z18 being somewhat of a North Germanic marker (perhaps specifically Norwegian/Swedish) originally.
From the Viking-study I noticed VK418, dated to the Iron Age around the year 350 CE, is also derived for R-Z18 according to Estes, which would mean it is the earliest Z18 found so far I believe? It was present here as far North as Engelřya in Northern Norway.