PDA

View Full Version : Scandinavian R1a



alan
07-13-2014, 06:49 PM
I was wondering if someone could give a quick summary of the earliest roots of R1a in Scandinavia. Is it a mix or is most of stem from a single branch off. If so, how old might that branching off be? I am curious because I have in the recent past thought ANE could have entered Scandinavia in the Mesolithic with pressure microblades. Is there any sign that Scandinavian R1a or some of it could have branched off that early

Also what is the best most up to date user friendly R1a tree that indicates geography or linguistic associations?

Michał
07-14-2014, 10:22 AM
I was wondering if someone could give a quick summary of the earliest roots of R1a in Scandinavia. Is it a mix or is most of stem from a single branch off. If so, how old might that branching off be? I am curious because I have in the recent past thought ANE could have entered Scandinavia in the Mesolithic with pressure microblades. Is there any sign that Scandinavian R1a or some of it could have branched off that early

Also what is the best most up to date user friendly R1a tree that indicates geography or linguistic associations?

I don’t know any data that would support the presence of R1a in Scandinavia prior to 3000 BC (i.e before the R1a-Z284 people or their ancestors from the parental clade R1a-Y2395 came to Scandinavia). However, since it is commonly suspected that R1a was present in Eastern Europe at a relatively early date, it is of course possible that some early lineages of R1a(xM417) could have penetrated the Fennoscandia in the pre-Neolithic times (just like the currently extinct sublineages of I2 did).

As for the most recently updated (and “user-friendly”) R1a tree, please visit the R1a1a and Subclades project:
https://www.familytreedna.com/public/r1a/
Since the NGS-based R1a tree grows very quickly, some more detailed schemes are also available for particular sub-branches, but I guess you are more interested in the general structure.

alan
07-14-2014, 02:12 PM
Thanks. That confirms my impression about R1a. That is interesting though as it raises the question of who was involved in bringing ANE to the Baltic and Scandinavia in the Mesolithic. I am pretty convinced that the best archaeological signal for the passing of genes from ancient Siberia into both eastern Europe and Scandinavia is the pressure microblade groups, the northern representatives of which are the post-Swiderian/Kunda type Mesolithic groups. So, if there is any trace in modern Scandinavian's y DNA of this movement it isnt R1a. What about Q?


I don’t know any data that would support the presence of R1a in Scandinavia prior to 3000 BC (i.e before the R1a-Z284 people or their ancestors from the parental clade R1a-Y2395 came to Scandinavia). However, since it is commonly suspected that R1a was present in Eastern Europe at a relatively early date, it is of course possible that some early lineages of R1a(xM417) could have penetrated the Fennoscandia in the pre-Neolithic times (just like the currently extinct sublineages of I2 did).

As for the most recently updated (and “user-friendly”) R1a tree, please visit the R1a1a and Subclades project:
https://www.familytreedna.com/public/r1a/
Since the NGS-based R1a tree grows very quickly, some more detailed schemes are also available for particular sub-branches, but I guess you are more interested in the general structure.

alan
07-14-2014, 03:32 PM
I actually wouldnt be surprised if Q was the sort of 'close to the ice sheet' group who came in with the post-Swiderian/Kunda groups because we know that other Siberian groups crossed similarly challenging areas into the Americas. I think with a lot of palaeolithic groups they tended to move as their environment moved rather than stay put but adapt. There is a complex sequence of change of environment from c. 10000-7000BC around the time these post-Swiderian cultures arose in NE Europe. Ideally we could do with a set of environmental zone maps for Eurasia and compare them to the latest dating on the post-Swiderian type cutures. I am trying to work out if they were following or actually avoiding the forests. The western originated groups seemed to follow the retreat of the tundra as they wanted to retain their hunting and environmental preferences. I feel pretty certain that they were I groups. Did the post-Swidererian groups from the east who appeared prefer boreal forest? What was their y DNA?

alan
07-15-2014, 11:24 AM
This is an interesting paper which sort of sees the Swiderians as part of the whole west to east repopulating of Europe and relates them to a general evacuation of the old lands in SW Europe to follow Reindeer. The paper contrasts them with the epigravettian mammoth hunters of Ukraine whose cultures seem to have gone extinct with their main quarry. It also sets the post-Swiderian/Kunda cultures as relating to the preboreal and boreal taiga environments which is interesting. Three groups, three subsistence-environment models. However, be warned that the paper seeks to simply bring the post-Swiderian/Kunda groups out of the Swiderian which I think is probably due to nationalistic bias.

http://vddb.library.lt/fedora/get/LT-eLABa-0001:J.04~2006~ISSN_1392-5520.N_7.PG_94-108/DS.002.1.01.ARTIC

This partially free chapter in a book about pressure microblades gives a better and more modern interpretation of post-Swiderian cultures, linking them with groups towards the Urals like Butovo

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Qjm8IbYgnmAC&pg=PA252&lpg=PA252&dq=kunda+culture+boreal&source=bl&ots=YTZfC2tE4y&sig=-p9_JNirkzkCXDFHubU-_Pg4pis&hl=en&sa=X&ei=xOzEU8yeI6mu0QWzi4HwDg&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=kunda%20culture%20boreal&f=false

The same chapter notes that pressure blade working probably spread from post-Swiderian/Kunda culture of the east Baltic to groups in Poland and into late Maglemosian south Scandinavian/north German groups c. 7000BC but did not reach the isles.

Its interesting that the earliest burials at the Oleny Ostrov cemetery in Latvia are postswiderian people described as 'massive northern Europoids with flattened faces'. There is a chapter on this by Potekhina called 'Postswiderian of NE Europe as seen from the anthropological data' which I have never read. I am wary of the interpretation of some of these old papers as there seems to be ethno-nationalistic biases involved. However, I wouldnt entirely dismiss the entire work.

All in all there does seem to be a case that eastern impulses crossed the Urals and north Russia after 10000BC and into the east Baltic in the pre-boreal and boreal times - ultimately influencing the late Maglemosian groups of southern Scandinavia and coastal Germany around 7000BC. I imagine if this is linked to ANE that its genetic impact decreased from east to west and was possibly very minor west of the Baltic.

I still am not sure what yDNA was involved. We do have some evidence of R* in Siberia in the early LGM period and the strong likelihood that Q expanded with microblade groups fro a a similar area in the post-LGM and into the Americas. I think its clear enough the way the cookie is crumbling but we need a lot more datapoints. We need yDNA from the Butovo culture and the Kunda/post-Swiderian Baltic cultures. We also need data from the microblade using Mesolithic cultures of the Ukraine and adjacent - Kukrek and Grebeniki. I am pretty certain that in that little group the first R people in Europe will likely be picked up.

Its a matter of interest that the SNP counting dating of Michal and others seems to confirm the youth of R1a while also at the same time indicating R1b is older than thought. This is something to chew over. SOME R1b clades are old enough to be considered pre-farming including M73. It is also true that some of the SNP counting dates for M269xL11 clades, although not older than farming in Europe over all, are old enough to be considered Mesolithic in some areas like the steppe and northern Europe where farming arrived very late.

Baltimore1937
07-31-2014, 11:29 AM
I belong to R1a-L664. I just ordered SNP testing for S2894 & S3477. I suspect I'll be positive for S2894, which would lump me with other Norskis (Norwegians) in L664. My line could be very ancient in Norway. It should be interesting to see where this research leads, as to where they came from and by which route.

Hando
01-04-2015, 04:11 PM
I actually wouldnt be surprised if Q was the sort of 'close to the ice sheet' group who came in with the post-Swiderian/Kunda groups because we know that other Siberian groups crossed similarly challenging areas into the Americas. I think with a lot of palaeolithic groups they tended to move as their environment moved rather than stay put but adapt. There is a complex sequence of change of environment from c. 10000-7000BC around the time these post-Swiderian cultures arose in NE Europe. Ideally we could do with a set of environmental zone maps for Eurasia and compare them to the latest dating on the post-Swiderian type cutures. I am trying to work out if they were following or actually avoiding the forests. The western originated groups seemed to follow the retreat of the tundra as they wanted to retain their hunting and environmental preferences. I feel pretty certain that they were I groups. Did the post-Swidererian groups from the east who appeared prefer boreal forest? What was their y DNA?

Hi Alan, I am not sure which of the Y DNA lines may have come into Europe in the Mesolithic with the post Swiderian/Kunda groups? Was it Q, I or R? I am not sure which of these 3 you think came in from Siberia into Scandinavia/NE Europe from Siberia with the pressure microblade culture? In the highlighted sections you mention Q and I and in post #5 you mention R when you state "I still am not sure what yDNA was involved. We do have some evidence of R* in Siberia in the early LGM period and the strong likelihood that Q expanded with microblade groups fro a a similar area in the post-LGM and into the Americas. I think its clear enough the way the cookie is crumbling but we need a lot more datapoints. We need yDNA from the Butovo culture and the Kunda/post-Swiderian Baltic cultures. We also need data from the microblade using Mesolithic cultures of the Ukraine and adjacent - Kukrek and Grebeniki. I am pretty certain that in that little group the first R people in Europe will likely be picked up."

Krefter
11-09-2015, 02:17 AM
An analysis of Norwegian R1a is in this spreadsheet. 88% is R1a-Z284 and most Z284 falls under 5 subclades. Strangely yfull estimates their TMRCA all to be 3200 or younger.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1YzT09-z3NodQSBcHNhcty6KQw6DQNLCKKaUZQTojIRA/edit#gid=936402560

The fact we have an example R1a-Z281, which has a formation date of 3900 according to yfull, in Denmark from almost 4700 years ago suggests the age estimates by yfull are too young. Z281 BTW is one of the more popular types of R1a in Norway and the guy who had it was Corded Ware or at least autosomally Corded Ware. yfull suggests a fairlly recent expansion of R1a-Z284 in Scandinavia which doesn't make sense to me. It must have expanded with Corded Ware IMO.

lgmayka
11-09-2015, 02:44 AM
The fact we have an example R1a-Z281, which has a formation date of 3900 according to yfull, in Denmark from almost 4700 years ago suggests the age estimates by yfull are too young.
Ancestral Journeys says (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/ancientdna.shtml) of that example:
---
2650-2300 BC including reduction for high marine signal
---

lgmayka
11-09-2015, 02:56 AM
Strangely yfull estimates their TMRCA all to be 3200 or younger.
YFull's TMRCA estimates apply to people living today, not ancient bones. Most Y-lines go extinct--modern TMRCAs represent only those that did not. Moreover, YFull only considers full-Y BAM files (supplied by customers, or published research samples). Perhaps the number of Danes who have submitted BAM files to YFull is rather small?

In any case, a more extreme example is that of I1 (I-M253), which has a YFull TMRCA of 4700 ybp (http://yfull.com/tree/I1/) but a "formed" date of more than 27,000 years ago!

Krefter
11-09-2015, 03:09 AM
YFull's TMRCA estimates apply to people living today, not ancient bones. Most Y-lines go extinct--modern TMRCAs represent only those that did not. Moreover, YFull only considers full-Y BAM files (supplied by customers, or published research samples). Perhaps the number of Danes who have submitted BAM files to YFull is rather small?

Good point. I didn't know how they got their samples so now the age estimates make more sense. The formation dates look 1,000 years off. Once they get more samples maybe they'll get more accurate dates. I'm very confident R1a-Z284 expanded with Corded Ware, but all of the major clades have a formation date of less than 4,000 years. 2/3 Corded Ware era Y DNAs from Scandinavia are R1a, so....


In any case, a more extreme example is that of I1 (I-M253), which has a YFull TMRCA of 4700 ybp (http://yfull.com/tree/I1/) but a "formed" date of more than 27,000 years ago!

IMO, I1 was absorbed from WHG/EEF by early IEs in Scandinavia and became a patriarch lineage. We have an example of pre-I1 in Mesolithic Sweden. So, this scenario is totally possible.

Gravetto-Danubian
11-09-2015, 04:55 AM
Does anyone have an idea on the emerging breakdown of the proportions of different R1a clades in Scandinavians (Z284, Z280s, L664) ?

Krefter
11-09-2015, 06:07 AM
Does anyone have an idea on the emerging breakdown of the proportions of different R1a clades in Scandinavians (Z284, Z280s, L664) ?

That information is in my spreadsheet. I doubt Sweden will be any differnt.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1YzT09-z3NodQSBcHNhcty6KQw6DQNLCKKaUZQTojIRA/edit#gid=936402560

22% in Norway have R1a-Z284. 88% of their R1a is Z284, 9% of their R1a is L664, and only 3% is of East European variety. Less than 1% of their Y DNA is of East European R1a variety, so it;s just from random forigen admixture not the the R1a expansion that occurred in LN/BA Scandinavia.

Their Z284 is basically broken down into two subclades, Z287 and L448, both are equally popular. R1a-Z287 is broken down into three basal subclades. All of those basal subclades are taken up mostly by deep subclades with young age estimates(usually ~3100 formation and Iron age TMRCA).The same is true for L448, however it is broken down into two subclades. So, yfull's age estimates suggest L448 and Z287 expanded mostly in the Bronze age or Early Iron age.

I think most R1a in Scandinavia expanded with Corded Ware though. As I posted above a popular deep subclade of Z284 was found in Corded Ware-era Denmark, and yfull gave it a formation date of 3900bp. I don't know what would cause 3 Z287 and 2 L448 subclades, who had been separated for 2,000 years and therefore had no family or ethnic association, to become popular in Scandinavia at the same time.

Gravetto-Danubian
11-09-2015, 06:46 AM
Thanks Krefter
Nice work

lgmayka
11-09-2015, 10:49 AM
All of those basal subclades are taken up mostly by deep subclades with young age estimates(usually ~3100 formation and Iron age TMRCA).The same is true for L448, however it is broken down into two subclades. So, yfull's age estimates suggest L448 and Z287 expanded mostly in the Bronze age or Early Iron age.

I think most R1a in Scandinavia expanded with Corded Ware though. As I posted above a popular deep subclade of Z284 was found in Corded Ware-era Denmark, and yfull gave it a formation date of 3900bp. I don't know what would cause 3 Z287 and 2 L448 subclades, who had been separated for 2,000 years and therefore had no family or ethnic association, to become popular in Scandinavia at the same time.
Denmark is not the Scandinavian Peninsula. I can imagine an initial occurrence of Z284 in Denmark in the Corded Ware period, followed by a later expansion into the Scandinavian Peninsula. If so, we may eventually find the "missing link" among Danes.

Most of the Big Y examples of Z284 so far claim British, Norwegian, Swedish, or Finnish ancestry. I do not see any self-declared Danes at all in the entire R-Z284 haplotree (http://yfull.com/tree/R-Z284/).

By the way, the phenomenon you describe--the parallel expansion of long-diverged siblings--is not only common but (arguably) the rule.
- The three major branches of R-CTS8816 (within Z280) diverged 4300 years ago (http://yfull.com/tree/R-CTS8816/), but each (S18681 (http://yfull.com/tree/R-S18681/), L1280 (http://yfull.com/tree/R-L1280/), and Y2902 (http://yfull.com/tree/R-Y2902/)) has a TMRCA of 2200-2400 ybp.
- The two major branches of R-Y2604 (within M458) diverged 4400 years ago (http://yfull.com/tree/R-Y2604/), but each (YP256 (http://yfull.com/tree/R-YP256/)and L1029 (http://yfull.com/tree/R-L1029/)) has a TMRCA of 2100 ybp.

GMan71
11-09-2015, 12:15 PM
On the topic of Z284 and L448 in Scandinavia. I have a personal interest in YP706 which is downstream of CTS4179 in turn downstream of L448. YP706 seems to be clustered around both Swedish and Finnish sides of the Gulf of Bothnia.
Any thoughts on where CTS4179 originated? Non specific Norwegian/Swedish or given how many Norwegians and Scots have it would it be somewhere in Norway and moved its way across to Sweden or possibly Finland where at some point YP706 originated?
Sorry for asking a very me specific question and not adding anything of relevance to the conversation!

Krefter
11-09-2015, 02:02 PM
By the way, the phenomenon you describe--the parallel expansion of long-diverged siblings--is not only common but (arguably) the rule.
- The three major branches of R-CTS8816 (within Z280) diverged 4300 years ago (http://yfull.com/tree/R-CTS8816/), but each (S18681 (http://yfull.com/tree/R-S18681/), L1280 (http://yfull.com/tree/R-L1280/), and Y2902 (http://yfull.com/tree/R-Y2902/)) has a TMRCA of 2200-2400 ybp.
- The two major branches of R-Y2604 (within M458) diverged 4400 years ago (http://yfull.com/tree/R-Y2604/), but each (YP256 (http://yfull.com/tree/R-YP256/)and L1029 (http://yfull.com/tree/R-L1029/)) has a TMRCA of 2100 ybp.

In Eastern Europe R1a has dominated since Corded Ware times. So anytype of expansion that occurs afterwards will probably involve an R1a lineage. In Scandinavia R1a was a minority, so it is unlikely distantly related clades will expand at the same time.

lgmayka
11-09-2015, 03:48 PM
In Scandinavia R1a was a minority, so it is unlikely distantly related clades will expand at the same time.
Actually, logic would dictate exactly that.

Let's say that R1a-Z284 (along with its subclades) was a major haplogroup in Denmark 3500 years ago. It then expanded into the Scandinavian Peninsula during the Nordic Bronze Age (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_Bronze_Age). The result would be exactly what we observe: a rapid expansion of Z284's subclades among the inhabitants of the Scandinavian Peninsula (and later their Viking progeny in the British Isles).

Notice that I-L22 (http://yfull.com/tree/I-L22/) (often called "Norse") shows a somewhat similar pattern. Here are its largest subclades, with their YFull dates:
- I-CTS11603 (http://yfull.com/tree/I-CTS11603/), formed 4100 ybp, TMRCA 3200 ybp
- I-Y3603 (http://yfull.com/tree/I-Y3603/), formed 4100 ybp, TMRCA 3300 ybp
- I-P109 (http://yfull.com/tree/I-P109/), formed 4100 ybp, TMRCA 3400 ybp
- I-L813 (http://yfull.com/tree/I-L813/), formed 4100 ybp, TMRCA 3500 ybp
- I-CTS2208 (http://yfull.com/tree/I-CTS2208/), formed 4100 ybp, TMRCA 2800 ybp

What we need, besides ancient DNA, is more Big Y testing of Z284 examples that do not fit one of the common clades--e.g., kit N23825, whose patrilineal origin is very near the (modern) German-Polish border (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angerm%C3%BCnde).

Krefter
11-09-2015, 07:05 PM
Actually, logic would dictate exactly that.

It is very unlikely. If 80% of Scandinavian Y DNA in 1000 BC is non-R1a, the chances of most Y DNA expansions during that time being from R1a is unlikely. Only certain circumstances can make it likely. For example if in one region R1a dominates and a tribe from that regions conquers others and an expansion of R1a occurs. But we have no evidence suggesting that was the case.


Let's say that R1a-Z284 (along with its subclades) was a major haplogroup in Denmark 3500 years ago. It then expanded into the Scandinavian Peninsula during the Nordic Bronze Age (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_Bronze_Age). The result would be exactly what we observe: a rapid expansion of Z284's subclades among the inhabitants of the Scandinavian Peninsula (and later their Viking progeny in the British Isles).


It's possible total randomness caused multiple distantly related R1a clades to expand at the same time or an isolated R1a dominated region to migrate into the rest of Scandinavia long after R1a first arrived. You're Bronze age Denmark source is possible but there's nothing strongly supporting it or disproving it. My opinion is to not take yfull age estimates too seriously.

We have an example of R1a in Corded Ware Sweden. Corded Ware settlers of Scandinavia were surely dominated by R1a. R1a did not first arrive or expand in the Scandinavai during the Bronze age. Either it expanded with Corded Ware or Corded Ware's R1a remained in an isolated region and expanded much later.

Krefter
11-09-2015, 07:08 PM
On the topic of Z284 and L448 in Scandinavia. I have a personal interest in YP706 which is downstream of CTS4179 in turn downstream of L448. YP706 seems to be clustered around both Swedish and Finnish sides of the Gulf of Bothnia.
Any thoughts on where CTS4179 originated? Non specific Norwegian/Swedish or given how many Norwegians and Scots have it would it be somewhere in Norway and moved its way across to Sweden or possibly Finland where at some point YP706 originated?
Sorry for asking a very me specific question and not adding anything of relevance to the conversation!

CTS4179 is old, like probably over 4,000 years old, and YP706 looks like a rare clade. An ambiguous origin in Scandinavia makes the most sense for it.

lgmayka
11-09-2015, 08:21 PM
If 80% of Scandinavian Y DNA in 1000 BC is non-R1a, the chances of most Y DNA expansions during that time being from R1a is unlikely.
Take a look at my previous post, pointing out that I-L22 shows exactly the same pattern.

We have an example of R1a in Corded Ware Sweden.
Archaeologists apparently see two successive expansions into the Scandinavian Peninsula: first the Battle Axe culture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corded_Ware_culture#Swedish-Norwegian_Battle_Axe_culture), then later the Nordic Bronze Age (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_Bronze_Age).

Krefter
11-09-2015, 08:33 PM
Good point Several major I1 clades have look like they have a Bronze/Iron age expansion date. That makes R1a expansions during that time more believable.

Artmar
11-10-2015, 11:19 AM
Most of the Big Y examples of Z284 so far claim British, Norwegian, Swedish, or Finnish ancestry. I do not see any self-declared Danes at all in the entire R-Z284 haplotree (http://yfull.com/tree/R-Z284/).

There has to be a problem with Danish testees at FTDNA, with many samples from THIS PROJECT: https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/denmark/about not being included in R1a Project or upgraded enough to determine a subclade.

Anyway, Denmark doesn't seem to be a cradle for most of modern Z284 variety. Otherwise, Z284 would've been much more widespread in continental Europe and had better connection with non-Norse Germanic Iron-Age expansions from Jastorf Culture - right?

This is how Danish and Grenlandic R1a distribution looks like according to a study that used most popular SNPs for macro-branches (excluding L664):

https://scontent-waw1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xal1/t31.0-8/10915134_757985670952106_5531132963391622330_o.jpg

It is worth noting that M417(xZ645) is most likely an L664 (although single cases of CTS4385xL664 can't be excluded) and Z282* can combine both Y2395xZ284 and new clade made by Pole and Baloch(Y17491). Z280 doesn't need to be wholly of Balto-Slavic variety, since presence of S24902 and some other rare subclades is possible). Still, we have comparably lower ability to verify that by using commercial testing of Danes, than in Norway or Sweden (for example).

Michał
11-12-2015, 11:59 AM
given how many Norwegians and Scots have it would it be somewhere in Norway and moved its way across to Sweden or possibly Finland where at some point YP706 originated?

It seems definitely most likely that clade CTS4179 expanded from Norway, even though this particular mutation could have been born somewhere else (shortly before arriving to NW Norway). I would also agree with the remaining part of the above scenario, although I would consider much more likely that clade YP706 was born and expanded from Sweden (rather than from Finland).

Michał
11-12-2015, 12:45 PM
Let's say that R1a-Z284 (along with its subclades) was a major haplogroup in Denmark 3500 years ago. It then expanded into the Scandinavian Peninsula during the Nordic Bronze Age (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_Bronze_Age). The result would be exactly what we observe: a rapid expansion of Z284's subclades among the inhabitants of the Scandinavian Peninsula (and later their Viking progeny in the British Isles).
Apart from the relatively low frequency of Z284 in Denmark and the lack of correlation between Z284 and the Jastorf-related Proto-Germanic expansion (as mentioned above by Artmar), I have two more problems with the above scenario. Firstly, if Z284 did not expand to Scandinavia before the Nordic Bronze Age, then which subclades of R1a were associated with the Scandinavian Battle Axe culture? Did they all go extinct? Secondly, what made those Z284 Nordic Bronze Age people concentrate in NW Norway (ie. in one of the least accessible and least habitable regions) where clade Z284 shows the highest frequency (and very high diversity)?



Archaeologists apparently see two successive expansions into the Scandinavian Peninsula: first the Battle Axe culture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corded_Ware_culture#Swedish-Norwegian_Battle_Axe_culture), then later the Nordic Bronze Age (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_Bronze_Age).
In case you assume that both these expansions could have been associated with R1a-Z284, would you be able to discriminate between the subclades of Z284 contributing specifically either to the Swedish-Norwegian Battle Axe culture or to the Nordic Bronze Age out of Denmark expansion?

Michał
11-12-2015, 01:02 PM
Only certain circumstances can make it likely. For example if in one region R1a dominates and a tribe from that regions conquers others and an expansion of R1a occurs. But we have no evidence suggesting that was the case.
Why do you think the Norse Viking expansion originating from a specific region in Norway (and leading to the cultural/linguistic unification of nearly all Scandinavian people) does not meet those requirements?



We have an example of R1a in Corded Ware Sweden. Corded Ware settlers of Scandinavia were surely dominated by R1a. R1a did not first arrive or expand in the Scandinavai during the Bronze age. Either it expanded with Corded Ware or Corded Ware's R1a remained in an isolated region and expanded much later.
Fully agreed. This is exactly what I have suggested in an earlier discussion on this subject: http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1027-Correlations-of-various-R1a-and-I-subclades-that-might-link-with-R1b-subclades&p=8038&viewfull=1#post8038



Good point Several major I1 clades have look like they have a Bronze/Iron age expansion date. That makes R1a expansions during that time more believable.
For the relationship between the territorial expansions and the TMRCA ages, please see my post in another thread: http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4967-The-origin-of-the-Slavs&p=117447&viewfull=1#post117447

Paul_Johnsen
11-12-2015, 03:22 PM
It seems definitely most likely that clade CTS4179 expanded from Norway, even though this particular mutation could have been born somewhere else (shortly before arriving to NW Norway). I would also agree with the remaining part of the above scenario, although I would consider much more likely that clade YP706 was born and expanded from Sweden (rather than from Finland).

I am not sure why you think CTS4179 came from North western Norway. South Eastern Norway seems more likely to me.

Michał
11-12-2015, 05:26 PM
I am not sure why you think CTS4179 came from North western Norway. South Eastern Norway seems more likely to me.
As I wrote above, CTS4179 might have been born elsewhere, but I consider it most likely that this clade significantly grew and expanded from NW Norway, mostly because this is a region that shows the highest frequency (and probably the highest diversity) of the entire parental clade Z284, and I would assume that all major subclades of Z284 were a part of the same expanding "proto-Viking" population. Additionally, if CTS4179 was frequent in Southern Scandinavia (including SE Norway and the neighboring region of Sweden) I would expect this clade to be relatively frequent among some Early Germanic tribes migrating to Central Europe (since many of them originated in Southern Scandinavia), which is not reflected in modern distribution of CTS4179.

Do you know any data suggesting that the frequency and diversity of CTS4179 is significantly higher in SE Norway than in NW Norway? If not, what makes you think this was the region from which CTS4179 expanded?

Paul_Johnsen
11-12-2015, 05:55 PM
As I wrote above, CTS4179 might have been born elsewhere, but I consider it most likely that this clade significantly grew and expanded from NW Norway, mostly because this is a region that shows the highest frequency (and probably the highest diversity) of the entire parental clade Z284, and I would assume that all major subclades of Z284 were a part of the same expanding "proto-Viking" population. Additionally, if CTS4179 was frequent in Southern Scandinavia (including SE Norway and the neighboring region of Sweden) I would expect this clade to be relatively frequent among some Early Germanic tribes migrating to Central Europe (since many of them originated in Southern Scandinavia), which is not reflected in modern distribution of CTS4179.

Do you know any data suggesting that the frequency and diversity of CTS4179 is significantly higher in SE Norway than in NW Norway? If not, what makes you think this was the region from which CTS4179 expanded?
I don't think East Germanics originated in Scandinavia.

As for CTS4179 in terms of diversity we are grasping at straws. However as far as I know YP1420 is so far only found in SE, all norwegian YP276+ are from the SE, YP386+ is centered around the south east (but it isn't exclusive). The exeption I think would be DYS 392= 13 (I forget the SNP), which is only found in Northern Norway/Sweden and Finland.

Also it isn't possible to say where R1a in Norway has its greatest frequency. In the Norway project Telemark, Buskerud and Oppland (all south east) are on par with Trøndelag (central Norway) in terms of frequency of R1a. The difference is that there seems to be more Z287 and L664 in Trøndelag (central Norway) and more L448 in the south east (the western parts of the south east anyway).

lgmayka
11-12-2015, 08:11 PM
In case you assume that both these expansions could have been associated with R1a-Z284, would you be able to discriminate between the subclades of Z284 contributing specifically either to the Swedish-Norwegian Battle Axe culture or to the Nordic Bronze Age out of Denmark expansion?
A rough guide is the TMRCA of the clade's major expansion. For example, R-L448 (http://yfull.com/tree/R-L448/) has a YFull TMRCA of only 3100 ybp, much younger than Corded Ware. If you wish, you can apply your two proposed adjustments--add 10-20%, but then subtract 500-1000 years--and you will then get roughly the same date.

R-Z281 (http://yfull.com/tree/R-Z281/) has a YFull TMRCA of only 1900 ybp.

This thread was recently revived because Krefter asserted that "[R1a-Z284] must have expanded with Corded Ware IMO." My point is that whether or not he is correct in a certain literal sense, it is clear that the vast majority of R1a-Z284 living today are the result of more recent expansions.

Michał
11-12-2015, 09:37 PM
I don't think East Germanics originated in Scandinavia.
Well, there are indeed many people who doubt this, so let's hope that this will be soon solved by Y-DNA results from Wielbark. Until then we can only wait and speculate. Anyway, let me just point out that this isn't related to the Goths only. As I have written in another thread, many of the Early Germanic tribes from Central Europe are commonly believed to have originated in the North, including Denmark (Cimbri, Teutones, Vandals, Angles), Bornholm (Burgundians), Sweden (Longobards, Varini, Goths, Gepides) or even Southern Norway (Rugii), so it seems that either the Scandinavian origin proposed for some of those tribes is a myth or, alternatively, there was no R1a-Z284 in Southern Scandinavia at that time.


As for CTS4179 in terms of diversity we are grasping at straws. However as far as I know YP1420 is so far only found in SE
As for YP1420, this is not what we can see in the R1a project. There are indeed four SE Norwegian samples in catgory YP1420, but they are all members of just one family (and not all of them were tested for YP1420). More importantly, the remaining group of predicted members of clade YP1420 (in category YP1420-x) includes six independent lineages from Norway, with four of them originating from northern or north-western counties.



all norwegian YP276+ are from the SE,
As far as I can see, there are only two Norwegian lineages in this group, which suggests that this large " Scottish superclan" did not leave many relatives behind when heading towards the Isles. Only one of those two Norwegians has been confirmed as YP276+ and he is reported as originating from Eastern Norway, so we still need to confirm that he is indeed from SE.



YP386+ is centered around the south east (but it isn't exclusive).
When comparing the SE location with the remaining ones, you seem to overlook one important factor, namely that the population density is much higher in SE Norway than in other regions. Therefore, even when finding more CTS4179 in SE Norway (than in the northern part of the country), this may still correspond to a significantly lower frequency of this clade in SE, and this is exactly what is suggested by all these data, though I agree that this needs to be much more carefully analyzed by the administrators of the Norwegian project (who should be able to compare the relative frequencies of different haplogroups/subclades in particular counties).



Also it isn't possible to say where R1a in Norway has its greatest frequency. In the Norway project Telemark, Buskerud and Oppland (all south east) are on par with Trøndelag (central Norway) in terms of frequency of R1a. The difference is that there seems to be more Z287 and L664 in Trøndelag (central Norway) and more L448 in the south east (the western parts of the south east anyway).
It would be great to get the exact frequencies for all counties (and not just the absolute numbers, which can be confusing, as explained above). Also I would love to see such calculations made for the Swedish project.

I could have been wrong when focusing on NW Norway only. Instead, I should rather point to Central-Northern Norway as a kind of "refugium" for R1a-Z284. This would actually fit my hypothesis much better, as I was assuming that the Battle Axe-derived R1a-Z284 population had been pushed north by an expanding non-R1a group (likely rich in both I1 and R1b) that was formed following the arrival of some new R1b groupings from the south. If this hypothesis is correct, we should also see increased frequencies of R1a-Z284 in the Swedish counties neighboring Nord-Trøndelag, Sør-Trøndelag and the northern part of Hedmark (thus in Dalarna and Jämtland).

Michał
11-12-2015, 09:51 PM
A rough guide is the TMRCA of the clade's major expansion. For example, R-L448 (http://yfull.com/tree/R-L448/) has a YFull TMRCA of only 3100 ybp, much younger than Corded Ware. If you wish, you can apply your two proposed adjustments--add 10-20%, but then subtract 500-1000 years--and you will then get roughly the same date.
I agree with all above, only that when combining those TMRCA ages with the modern distribution of all subclades under Z284 (including L448, its major subclades and sister clades), I cannot see anything strongly indicating a hypothetical post-CW (or Bronze Age) expansion out of Denmark.

Gravetto-Danubian
11-12-2015, 10:00 PM
Well, there are indeed many people who doubt this, so let's hope that this will be soon solved by Y-DNA results from Wielbark. Until then we can only wait and speculate. Anyway, let me just point out that this isn't related to the Goths only. As I have written in another thread, many of the Early Germanic tribes from Central Europe are commonly believed to have originated in the North, including Denmark (Cimbri, Teutones, Vandals, Angles), Bornholm (Burgundians), Sweden (Longobards, Varini, Goths, Gepides) or even Southern Norway (Rugii), so it seems that either the Scandinavian origin proposed for some of those tribes is a myth or, alternatively, there was no R1a-Z284 in Southern Scandinavia at that time.


I think this is mostly Roman myth which has been emphatically and uncritically echoed by modern writers. The ethnogenesis and expansions of Germanic groups was far more complex than ex-Scandzia.


"In case you assume that both these expansions could have been associated with R1a-Z284, would you be able to discriminate between the subclades of Z284 contributing specifically either to the Swedish-Norwegian Battle Axe culture or to the Nordic Bronze Age out of Denmark expansion? "

I think the expansion of individual lines was more due to the luck and exploits of individual 'clans' rather than broad-brushed associations with 'archaeological cultures' which are overlapping networks of multiple communities/ clans/ households.


** ADDITIONAL:
-does anyone know the R1a profile of (mainland) Germans ??

Michał
11-12-2015, 10:43 PM
-does anyone know the R1a profile of (mainland) Germans ??
Most of that (mainland) German R1a are some well-known subclades of both Z280 and M458. Importantly, all these subclades are more frequent among the neighboring Slavic poeople. Also, there seems to be an apparent east to west gradient for both M458 and Z280 in Germany (from 5-15% in the East to 0-5% in the West).

The frequency of the so-called "Germanic" clades Z284 and L664 is very low (below 1%) and they are practically limited to some Northern (or coastal) regions.

Even lower are the frequencies of the early separated Western European (non-Slavic, post-Corded Ware?) lineages directly under Z280, those under Z280>S24902, under Y2395 (a clade parental to the Scandinavian subclade Z284), under Z283(xZ282) and under Z282(xZ280,M458,Y2395). Similarly, the frequency for all "Asian" subclades (and rare early separated European lineages) under Z93 is very low (much below 1%).

Finally, there are some very rare cases (again much below 1%) of very early separated R1a subclades, like YP4141 (R1a2) and YP1051 (R1a1a2).

Gravetto-Danubian
11-12-2015, 11:15 PM
Most of that (mainland) German R1a are some well-known subclades of both Z280 and M458. Importantly, all these subclades are more frequent among the neighboring Slavic poeople. Also, there seems to be an apparent east to west gradient for both M458 and Z280 in Germany (from 5-15% in the East to 0-5% in the West).

The frequency of the so-called "Germanic" clades Z284 and L664 is very low (below 1%) and they are practically limited to some Northern (or coastal) regions.

Even lower are the frequencies of the early separated Western European (non-Slavic, post-Corded Ware?) lineages directly under Z280, those under Z280>S24902, under Y2395 (a clade parental to the Scandinavian subclade Z284), under Z283(xZ282) and under Z282(xZ280,M458,Y2395). Similarly, the frequency for all "Asian" subclades (and rare early separated European lineages) under Z93 is very low (much below 1%).

Finally, there are some very rare cases (again much below 1%) of very early separated R1a subclades, like YP4141 (R1a2) and YP1051 (R1a1a2).

That is very interesting, and somewhat what I expected. German R1a appears to be mostly "Slavic" in source, with meagre "Nordic' R1a.

Tomenable
11-12-2015, 11:44 PM
^ We have that Bronze Age HAL36 from Halberstadt, dated to 1113-1021 BC, with R1a-Z280. Interestingly today R1a-M458 has a more westerly distribution than R1a-Z280, so one would rather expect Z280 to be "more Slavic" and M458 to be present already in the Bronze Age.

By the way, it seems that there was more R1a in East-Central Germany in the Bronze Age, than today:

Here is a map comparing R1a/R1b Y-DNA from Bronze Age burials found in East-Central Germany, and Y-DNA from modern Germans:

Green locations - places from which Ancient samples of Y-DNA come from
Blue locations - Magdeburg and Leipzig (samples from modern inhabitants)

Light red numbers - samples with R1a haplogroup found in each location
Dark red numbers - samples with R1b haplogroup found in each location

http://s16.postimg.org/trmum8gvp/East_Central_Germany.png

http://s16.postimg.org/trmum8gvp/East_Central_Germany.png

Sources:

1) For R1a/R1b frequencies in ancient DNA samples from those six sites:

- Haak 2015, Massive migration from the steppe is a source for Indo-European languages in Europe
- Mathieson 2015, Eight thousand years of natural selection in Europe
- Brandt 2013, Ancient DNA Reveals Key Stages in the Formation of Central European Mitochondrial Genetic Diversity
- Lee 2012, Emerging genetic patterns of the European neolithic: Perspectives from a late neolithic bell beaker burial site in Germany
- Adler 2012, Ancient DNA Studies of Human Evolution
- Schilz 2006, Molekulargenetische Verwandtschaftsanalysen am prähistorischen Skelettkollektiv der Lichtensteinhöhle
- http://www.anthrogenica.com/forum.php
- http://www.ancestraljourneys.org

2) For R1a/R1b frequencies in modern samples from Magdeburg & Leipzig:

- Wiik 2008, Where Did European Men Come From?

Perhaps the "Ostsiedlung", which involved mostly settlers from R1b-rich areas such as Holland, Rhineland, Flanders, increased R1b proportion:

http://s14.postimg.org/x4br5z39d/Die_Bauern.png

http://s14.postimg.org/x4br5z39d/Die_Bauern.png

Sources:

http://www.feudalismus.de/magister.htm

And Helmold's chronicle (it mentions that settlers were coming from westernmost parts of West-Germanic-speaking areas):

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=acls;cc=acls;view=toc;idno=heb05999.0001.001

Gravetto-Danubian
11-13-2015, 12:06 AM
^ We have that Bronze Age HAL36 from Halberstadt, dated to 1113-1021 BC, with R1a-Z280. Interestingly today R1a-M458 has a more westerly distribution than R1a-Z280, so one would rather expect Z280 to be "more Slavic" and M458 to be present already in the Bronze Age.

By the way, it seems that there was more R1a in East-Central Germany in the Bronze Age, than today:



If further confirmed by aDNA, then the shift toward M458 probably overlaid older subclades of Z280. M458’s expansion must be more recent, but the question is where did it expanded from (say c. 400 – 600 AD). My guess would either be the SE Baltic / eastern Pomorania regions, or toward the Carpathian ranges.

Tomenable
11-13-2015, 12:17 AM
^ I'm quite disappointed that we still don't have info on exact subclades of most of those Bronze Age R1a samples from Europe.

In fact, I've noticed that Jean M on her website has even recently "reverted" some samples previously assigned to R1a:

RISE431 - used to be listed as R1a, now is listed as K(xLT)
RISE434 - used to be R1a, now is listed as P1
RISE436 - used to be R1a, now is listed as CT

Jean has also "reverted" one sample which used to be listed on her site as R1b, to the status of R1:

RISE560 - used to be R1b, now is listed as R1

I'm not sure why has she decided to change her mind on these samples (I guess previous information was from Genetiker?).

And from Mathieson 2015 we have some new samples, which are so far listed just as P1 or R1:

I1542/ESP33 - P1
I0246/SVP41 - P1
ROT1/I1530 - R1

Gravetto-Danubian
11-13-2015, 12:33 AM
^ I'm quite disappointed that we still don't have info on exact subclades of most of those Bronze Age R1a samples from Europe.

In fact, I've noticed that Jean M on her website has even recently "reverted" some samples previously assigned to R1a:

RISE431 - used to be listed as R1a, now is listed as K(xLT)
RISE434 - used to be R1a, now is listed as P1
RISE436 - used to be R1a, now is listed as CT

Jean has also "reverted" one sample which used to be listed on her site as R1b, to the status of R1:

RISE560 - used to be R1b, now is listed as R1

I'm not sure why has she decided to change her mind on these samples (I guess previous information was from Genetiker?).

And from Mathieson 2015 we have some new samples, which are so far listed just as P1 or R1:

I1542/ESP33 - P1
I0246/SVP41 - P1
ROT1/I1530 - R1

Hhhm. I'll see if one of friends from here can run them through his software when Mathieson data gets released

But I know several people from here already analysed the RISE data and was posted here a while ago.

Generalissimo
11-13-2015, 12:50 AM
^ I'm quite disappointed that we still don't have info on exact subclades of most of those Bronze Age R1a samples from Europe.

In fact, I've noticed that Jean M on her website has even recently "reverted" some samples previously assigned to R1a:

RISE431 - used to be listed as R1a, now is listed as K(xLT)
RISE434 - used to be R1a, now is listed as P1
RISE436 - used to be R1a, now is listed as CT

Jean has also "reverted" one sample which used to be listed on her site as R1b, to the status of R1:

RISE560 - used to be R1b, now is listed as R1

I'm not sure why has she decided to change her mind on these samples (I guess previous information was from Genetiker?).

And from Mathieson 2015 we have some new samples, which are so far listed just as P1 or R1:

I1542/ESP33 - P1
I0246/SVP41 - P1
ROT1/I1530 - R1

The Y-DNA classifications in Mathieson et al. for the samples from Allentoft et al. are very basic, and not particularly useful. Even Allentoft et al. weren't so cautious, and they didn't even list any of the Y-DNA data in a table.

It seems like Jean went with the new classifications. Not sure why though...?

Gravetto-Danubian
11-13-2015, 12:51 AM
The Y-DNA classifications in Mathieson et al. for the samples from Allentoft et al. are very basic, and not particularly useful. Even Allentoft et al. weren't so cautious, and they didn't even list any of the Y-DNA data in a table.

But as long as they have released the raw data we can make some bolder predictions (?)

Tomenable
11-13-2015, 12:54 AM
(...)

And from Mathieson 2015 we have some new samples, which are so far listed just as P1 or R1:

I1542/ESP33 - P1
I0246/SVP41 - P1
ROT1/I1530 - R1

Hhhm. I'll see if one of friends from here can run them through his software

Oh that would be great! :) There are over a dozen "ambiguous R1a" samples that he might want to run:

Five Non-Scandinavian R1a, Central European RISE samples (Allentoft 2015; Mathieson 2015):

- RISE598
- RISE446
- RISE431
- RISE434
- RISE436

And one Scandinavian RISE, which according to Genetiker is R1a, but it's not certain:

- RISE42

Seven R1a samples from Esperstedt (Adler 2012; Brandt 2013; Haak 2015; Mathieson 2015):

- ESP8 (I1532 in Mathieson)
- ESP11 (I0104 in Mathieson)
- ESP17 (I1536 in Mathieson)
- ESP20 (I1538 in Mathieson)
- ESP28 (I1540 in Mathieson)
- ESP32 (I1541 in Mathieson)
- ESP36 (I1544 in Mathieson)

R1a samples from Lichtenstein Cave near Dorste:

- M10 (from Schilz 2006)
- M11 (from Schilz 2006)

R1a samples from Eulau (from Haak 2008 and Brandt 2013):

EUL9(99-3)
EUL11(99-2)
EUL12(99-4)

While in case of RISE61, RISE94 and HAL36 - here we already know their subclades.


The frequency of the so-called "Germanic" clades Z284 and L664 is very low (below 1%)

If we believe Underhill's 2014 study, then in a sample of 322 Germans he found:

Z284 - 0,95% (3 people)
M417(xZ645) - 0,3% (1)

So in total 1,25% - actually. I suppose that the xZ645 guy was CTS4385/L664.

lgmayka
11-13-2015, 12:56 AM
M458’s expansion must be more recent, but the question is where did it expanded from (say c. 400 – 600 AD). My guess would either be the SE Baltic / eastern Pomorania regions, or toward the Carpathian ranges.
The two major M458 branches may have expanded from slightly different origins. R-YP256 (http://yfull.com/tree/R-YP256/) is heavily concentrated in the West Slavic countries (here's a map of L260+ (http://www.semargl.me/haplogroups/maps/35/)), so I don't see how it could have arisen very far from the Carpathians. R-L1029 (http://yfull.com/tree/R-L1029/) is much more widely spread, although it still arguably centers on Poland. (Here's a map of L1029+ (http://www.semargl.me/haplogroups/maps/371/).)

Generalissimo
11-13-2015, 12:59 AM
But as long as they have released the raw data we can make some bolder predictions (?)

Yes, but the data from Allentoft et al. is already available, and even the authors released a sheet with more detailed classifications than what Mathieson et al. gave, so there's no need to limit ourselves to the Mathieson et al. classifications.

Michał
11-13-2015, 01:28 AM
Perhaps the "Ostsiedlung", which involved mostly settlers from R1b-rich areas such as Holland, Rhineland, Flanders, increased R1b proportion:

I agree that this could have been a very significant factor. Nevertheless, I would also assume that the "old" Central-Western European R1a species disappeared much earlier, ie. during the southward (and eastward) expansion of Yastorf and post-Yastorf populations from the North (initially from Northern Germany and Jutland, and later also from Southern Scandinavia). Unfortunately, they all cremated their deads, which will make this hypothesis hard to verify.

I would love to know whether the Z280+ Halberstadt sample was negative for both CTS1211 and Z92 (ie. for mutations defining two major subclades directly under Z280 encompassing >99% of Balto-Slavic Z280), which is what I am strongly suspecting.

Gravetto-Danubian
11-13-2015, 01:31 AM
The two major M458 branches may have expanded from slightly different origins. R-YP256 (http://yfull.com/tree/R-YP256/) is heavily concentrated in the West Slavic countries (here's a map of L260+ (http://www.semargl.me/haplogroups/maps/35/)), so I don't see how it could have arisen very far from the Carpathians. R-L1029 (http://yfull.com/tree/R-L1029/) is much more widely spread, although it still arguably centers on Poland. (Here's a map of L1029+ (http://www.semargl.me/haplogroups/maps/371/).)

Do we know which clades are found in Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Finland ?

Michał
11-13-2015, 01:36 AM
If we believe Underhill's 2014 study, then in a sample of 322 Germans he found:

Z284 - 0,95% (3 people)
M417(xZ645) - 0,3% (1)

So in total 1,25% - actually. I suppose that the xZ645 guy was CTS4385/L664.
Yes, I should make it clear that <1% was referred to each of those two Germanic clades separately.

Michał
11-13-2015, 02:32 AM
M458’s expansion must be more recent, but the question is where did it expanded from (say c. 400 – 600 AD). My guess would either be the SE Baltic / eastern Pomorania regions, or toward the Carpathian ranges.
The former scenario seems very unlikely, as the original (autochtonic) Slavic population from East Pomerania (Kashubia) shows one of the lowest levels of M458 in Poland, while demonstrating very high levels of Z280 (mostly L365) instead. Additionally, the Kashubian M458 population includes very little of L260, one of the two major subclades of M458 that seems to be most common in SE Poland and Bohemia, while the other major subclade of M458 (CTS11962, parental to L1029) seems to be slightly less frequent among the Kashubians than it is in some regions of Belarus.

As noted by lgmayka, the initial expansion of M458 is much more likely to have started somewhere close to SE Poland, and I would personally favor the territory slightly east (or north-east) to this region.

As this is a thread devoted to Scandinavian R1a, let's go back to the subject (while discussing the Slavic R1a in more appropriate threads).

Michał
11-13-2015, 03:22 AM
Do we know which clades are found in Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Finland ?
They all show much more Z280 than M458 (with Z284 constituting a significant fraction only in Finland), although the levels of M458 are not negligible (though below 10% in Lithuania and much less in the remaining countries, including <1% in Finland). As for Z280, these are mostly some Balto-Slavic subclades that seem to be slightly more Baltic than Slavic, like Z92 and some subclades under CTS1211 (like YP237, among others). However, it should be noted that there is no clear distinction between the Slavic and Baltic subclades of Z280, and there are some relatively large (though quite young) subclades under both Z92 (like YP569) and YP237 (like L365) that seem to be quite strongly associated with some regional Slavic groupings. This certainly has something to do with the Slavic ethnogenesis process taking place in the Balto-Slavic context.

Another characteristic feature of all above populations is that they show very high frequency of haplogroup N1c (about 30-40% in the SE Baltic region). The exact origin of that Baltic N1c is a very controversial issue, so I would recommend discussing this in other threads (like this one (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1712-N1c-in-the-Balts)), even though I strongly suspect that this is associated with a relatively recent (and sex-specific) Nordic/Scandinavian ancestry.

Paul_Johnsen
11-13-2015, 04:43 AM
Well, there are indeed many people who doubt this, so let's hope that this will be soon solved by Y-DNA results from Wielbark. Until then we can only wait and speculate. Anyway, let me just point out that this isn't related to the Goths only. As I have written in another thread, many of the Early Germanic tribes from Central Europe are commonly believed to have originated in the North, including Denmark (Cimbri, Teutones, Vandals, Angles), Bornholm (Burgundians), Sweden (Longobards, Varini, Goths, Gepides) or even Southern Norway (Rugii), so it seems that either the Scandinavian origin proposed for some of those tribes is a myth or, alternatively, there was no R1a-Z284 in Southern Scandinavia at that time.


As for YP1420, this is not what we can see in the R1a project. There are indeed four SE Norwegian samples in catgory YP1420, but they are all members of just one family (and not all of them were tested for YP1420). More importantly, the remaining group of predicted members of clade YP1420 (in category YP1420-x) includes six independent lineages from Norway, with four of them originating from northern or north-western counties.



As far as I can see, there are only two Norwegian lineages in this group, which suggests that this large " Scottish superclan" did not leave many relatives behind when heading towards the Isles. Only one of those two Norwegians has been confirmed as YP276+ and he is reported as originating from Eastern Norway, so we still need to confirm that he is indeed from SE.



When comparing the SE location with the remaining ones, you seem to overlook one important factor, namely that the population density is much higher in SE Norway than in other regions. Therefore, even when finding more CTS4179 in SE Norway (than in the northern part of the country), this may still correspond to a significantly lower frequency of this clade in SE, and this is exactly what is suggested by all these data, though I agree that this needs to be much more carefully analyzed by the administrators of the Norwegian project (who should be able to compare the relative frequencies of different haplogroups/subclades in particular counties).



It would be great to get the exact frequencies for all counties (and not just the absolute numbers, which can be confusing, as explained above). Also I would love to see such calculations made for the Swedish project.

I could have been wrong when focusing on NW Norway only. Instead, I should rather point to Central-Northern Norway as a kind of "refugium" for R1a-Z284. This would actually fit my hypothesis much better, as I was assuming that the Battle Axe-derived R1a-Z284 population had been pushed north by an expanding non-R1a group (likely rich in both I1 and R1b) that was formed following the arrival of some new R1b groupings from the south. If this hypothesis is correct, we should also see increased frequencies of R1a-Z284 in the Swedish counties neighboring Nord-Trøndelag, Sør-Trøndelag and the northern part of Hedmark (thus in Dalarna and Jämtland).

I am aware that the suggested "east germaic tribes" with Scandinavian roots extend further than Goths. I don't think this is very convincing since there is no evidence that anything apart from North germanic was ever spoken in Scandinavia.

Passa made some great maps based on the Norwegian project http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?5304-Norway-Y-DNA-maps. Dalarna/Jämtland should be correlated to Trøndelag since they historically were classified as trønder dialects, not so much Hedmark who speak an eastern dialects. Indeed what is certain is that the frequency of R1a in Hedmark isn't particularly high (around 25%) unlike Trøndelag.

Waldemar
11-13-2015, 08:55 AM
They all show much more Z280 than M458 (with Z284 constituting a significant fraction only in Finland), although the levels of M458 are not negligible (though below 10% in Lithuania and much less in the remaining countries, including <1% in Finland).

Higher numbers of M458 in Lithuania are not surprising. It is well known that Lithuanians frequently raided Poland during the Middle Ages, kidnapping thousands of people from the eastern Poland.

https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wojny_polsko-litewskie_%28XIII-XIV_wiek%29#Wp.C5.82yw_najazd.C3.B3w_litewskich_na _gospodark.C4.99_i_demografi.C4.99

Gravetto-Danubian
11-13-2015, 09:14 AM
Higher numbers of M458 in Lithuania are not surprising. It is well known that Lithuanians frequently raided Poland during the Middle Ages, kidnapping thousands of people from the eastern Poland.

https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wojny_polsko-litewskie_%28XIII-XIV_wiek%29#Wp.C5.82yw_najazd.C3.B3w_litewskich_na _gospodark.C4.99_i_demografi.C4.99

And they let these slaves mate with their women ?

Waldemar
11-13-2015, 09:25 AM
I'm sure some of them did mingle with their women. All Polish captives were released once the Lithuanian-Polish relations improved in the first half of the 14th century. For example Aldona of Lithuania (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aldona_of_Lithuania) received 4,000 Polish freed captives as her dowry in 1325.

The Polish minority in Lithuania (source (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poles_in_Lithuania)) numbered 200,317 persons, according to the Lithuanian census of 2011, or 6.6% of the total population of Lithuania. It is the largest ethnic minority in the country and the second largest Polish diaspora group among the post-Soviet states. The numbers were higher, but some Poles underwent a process of cultural assimilation (source (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithuanization)).

Waldemar
11-13-2015, 10:31 AM
Analysing pre-12th century DNA (before the Lithuanian raids) from the territories inhabited by the East Balts would be interesting. Perhaps M458 there was absent until more recent times?

Michał
11-13-2015, 11:45 AM
I am aware that the suggested "east germaic tribes" with Scandinavian roots extend further than Goths. I don't think this is very convincing since there is no evidence that anything apart from North germanic was ever spoken in Scandinavia.

Importantly, if not the Wulfila bible many of us would doubt that Gothic (or Eastern Germanic) was spoken at all, so all this seems to be a consequence of illiteracy of the Early Germanic people (including the ancient Scandinavians). In fact, we have no strong evidence for any particular Pre-North Germanic language being spoken in Scandinavia, yet North Germanic is very young and there certainly were some pre-Nordic (or non-Nordic) speakers in ancient Sweden and Norway. This could include both IE and non-IE languages, with the former likely including some Early Germanic dialects that were later replaced by North Germanic. It seems that this apparent unification process started in the first half of the first millennium AD, and this might have been related to the appearance of the oldest runes (dated to 150 AD, thus a century after the (supposedly) Scandinavia-derived Wielbark culture was formed in Northern Poland). On the other hand, I would also assume that this initial language unification process encompassing Denmark, Sweden and Norway (likely completed before 400 AD, ie. before the Anglo-Saxon migration) was followed by another (more recent) wave of unification of Northern dialects that was somehow related to the Early Viking (or Pre-Viking) expansion within Scandinavia (a process corresponding to the hypothetical "Intra-Scandinavian" expansion of R1a-Z284), which was then followed by the Norse Viking out-of-Scandinavia expansion.

Waldemar
11-13-2015, 12:09 PM
Importantly, if not the Wulfila bible many of us would doubt that Gothic (or Eastern Germanic) was spoken at all

Wulfila (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulfilas#Biography) translated the Bible into Gothic near Nicopolis ad Istrum (today's Bulgaria) in ca.348 AD.

http://s10.postimg.org/kjyw4rt9l/Screen_Hunter_1176_Nov_13_12_12.jpg

Gothic raids in the 3rd century AD
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/26/Gothic_raids_in_the_3rd_century.jpg/583px-Gothic_raids_in_the_3rd_century.jpg

As far as I know, pre-3rd century history of the Goths is just a guess based on scarce written sources and supposedly "Germanic" archaeological evidences.

Principality of Theodoro (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Theodoro) in Crimea
http://s10.postimg.org/glpklelex/Caffa_and_Theodoro.png

Procopius "Buildings" (http://www.loebclassics.com/view/procopius-buildings/1940/pb_LCL343.217.xml?readMode=recto):
"And there is a certain region along the coast there called Dory, where Goths have lived from ancient times, those namely who had not followed Theoderic when he went into Italy, but remained there of their own accord, and even up to my day they are on terms of alliance with the Romans. And they march with the Romans against their enemies whenever the Emperor so wishes. Their number comes to three thousand, and they are both excellent soldiers and skillful tillers of the soil, and the most hospitable people in the world. The land of Dory itself lies on high ground, yet it is neither rough nor hard, but good soil and productive of the best crops. However, the Emperor built no city or fortress in any part of this land, since the men of the country would not suffer themselves to be confined in any fortified places but always lived most happily in an open plain. But wherever the region seemed easily accessible to assailants, he shut off these approaches with long walls and thereby freed the Goths from fear of invasion."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mangup

Tomenable
11-13-2015, 01:30 PM
The exact origin of that Baltic N1c is a very controversial issue, so I would recommend discussing this in other threads (like this one), even though I strongly suspect that this is associated with a relatively recent (and sex-specific) Nordic/Scandinavian ancestry.

Baltic N1c is much older than the Viking Age, so I don't think that it is of Scandinavian origin:

N1c1a1a1a (L550): found throughout the Baltic and North Slavic (especially East Slavic) countries
N1c1a1a1a1 (L1025): found especially in Balto-Slavic countries, with a peak in Lithuania and Latvia

N-L550 formed 3300 ybp, TMRCA 2700 ybp (according to YFull estimate, which can be 10-20% too young)
N-L1025 formed 2700 ybp, TMRCA 2500 ybp (according to YFull estimate, which can be 10-20% too young)

N1c was found in 2 burials of Zhizhitskaya culture near Serteya (Smolensk Oblast - see the map below), dated to ca. 2500 BC.

Do we know if that N1c from Zhizhitskaya culture was under N-L550 or under N-L1025 ???

Another N1c was found in "Devichi gory" burial - dated to ca. 800-400 BC, located on the banks of Lake Zhizhitskoye:

http://s8.postimg.org/fbb2obo11/map_of_locations.png

That younger N1c comes from Dnieper-Dvina culture, associated with East Balts (ancestors of Lithuanians & Latvians):

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dnepr-Dwina-Kultur

Iron Age homeland of East Balts were forest cultures of North-West Russia characterised by hillforts and long barrows.

That network of hillfort-building cultures of the forest zone, included primarily the following cultures:

- Brushed pottery culture
- Stroked-pottery culture
- Dnieper-Dvina culture
- Yukhnov culture
- Upper Oka culture

In another thread Volat also mentioned:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3820-R1a-from-Haak-et-al-2015&p=71110#post71110


Stroked-pottery culture 7BC-5AD
Moshinskaya culture 4AD-6AD related to Dniepr-Dvina culture
Upper-Oka culture of Iron age related to dniepr-Dvina culture
Milograd culture 7BC-1AD
Yukhnovskaya culture 5BC-2BC
Eastern lithuanian barrow culture 5AD-12AD
Bantser archeological culture – 4AD-6AD
Stone barrow culture 4AD-13AD
Possibly Kolichinsk (5AD-7AD)

If that N1c from Dnieper-Dvina culture was of the same type as in modern Balts, we can exclude Scandinavian origin.

We have two samples of Y-DNA from Dnieper-Dvina culture, from the area of Lake Zhizhitskoye (see Chekunova 2014*):

Sample A4 - Anashkino hillfort - dated to ca. 800-400 BC; Y-DNA: R1a1, mtDNA: H
Sample A5 - "Devichi gory" burial - dated to ca. 800-400 BC, Y-DNA: N1c, mtDNA: H2

The same Y-DNA haplogroups which are today found among Latvians and Lithuanians in roughly equal proportion.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Chekunova (2014), "The first results of genetic typing of local population and ancient humans in Upper Dvina region", in Mazurkevich, Polkovnikova and Dolbunova, "Archaeology of lake settlement IV-II mill. BC", pp. 290-294:

https://www.academia.edu/9452168/Archaeology_of_lake_settlements_IV-II_mill._BC_Mazurkevich_A._Polkovnikova_M._Dolbuno va_E._ed

Also Dolukhanov et al., "The East European Plain on the Eve of Agriculture" (info on sites with aDNA from Chekunova - info on sites of Zhizhitskaya culture is on page 185, while on sites of Dnieper-Dvina culture on page 187):

http://www.mas.ncl.ac.uk/~nas13/AS/2009BAR_Int_Ser1964_Dolukhanov_etal.pdf

Michał
11-13-2015, 02:13 PM
Baltic N1c
I am moving this discussion to a more appropriate thread (the one mentioned in my previous post).

Tomenable
11-13-2015, 02:25 PM
OK, I will move my post there.

Gravetto-Danubian
11-13-2015, 10:55 PM
Wulfila (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulfilas#Biography) translated the Bible into Gothic near Nicopolis ad Istrum (today's Bulgaria) in ca.348 AD.

http://s10.postimg.org/kjyw4rt9l/Screen_Hunter_1176_Nov_13_12_12.jpg

Gothic raids in the 3rd century AD
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/26/Gothic_raids_in_the_3rd_century.jpg/583px-Gothic_raids_in_the_3rd_century.jpg

As far as I know, pre-3rd century history of the Goths is just a guess based on scarce written sources and supposedly "Germanic" archaeological evidences.

Principality of Theodoro (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Theodoro) in Crimea
http://s10.postimg.org/glpklelex/Caffa_and_Theodoro.png

Procopius "Buildings" (http://www.loebclassics.com/view/procopius-buildings/1940/pb_LCL343.217.xml?readMode=recto):
"And there is a certain region along the coast there called Dory, where Goths have lived from ancient times, those namely who had not followed Theoderic when he went into Italy, but remained there of their own accord, and even up to my day they are on terms of alliance with the Romans. And they march with the Romans against their enemies whenever the Emperor so wishes. Their number comes to three thousand, and they are both excellent soldiers and skillful tillers of the soil, and the most hospitable people in the world. The land of Dory itself lies on high ground, yet it is neither rough nor hard, but good soil and productive of the best crops. However, the Emperor built no city or fortress in any part of this land, since the men of the country would not suffer themselves to be confined in any fortified places but always lived most happily in an open plain. But wherever the region seemed easily accessible to assailants, he shut off these approaches with long walls and thereby freed the Goths from fear of invasion."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mangup

Yes its all hypothetical.
Frederik Kortlandt argued that Gothic descended down the Danube from the west rather than the north, on linguistic grounds.

http://www.kortlandt.nl/publications/art198e.pdf


From an archaeological perspective, there are some deep differences between the Chernyakov ("Gothic") culture and Wilbark (pre- or 'north' Gothic) culture. For example - the basic economy (farming north vs pastoralist south), absence of "elite burials" in south vs absence of Roman-style stone-based houses in north, etc.

ÁNLEIFR
11-13-2015, 11:18 PM
That is very interesting, and somewhat what I expected. German R1a appears to be mostly "Slavic" in source, with meagre "Nordic' R1a.

I wondered that about the Neuri in this post #41:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1027-Correlations-of-various-R1a-and-I-subclades-that-might-link-with-R1b-subclades&p=81112&viewfull=1#post81112

Michał
11-13-2015, 11:20 PM
Frederik Kortlandt argued that Gothic descended down the Danube from the west rather than the north, on linguistic grounds.
http://www.kortlandt.nl/publications/art198e.pdf
Have you read this paper (and found it convincing)? I don't like to repeat myself but here is a fragment of my post from a similar discussion once held on the Molgen forum:

I read this short paper by Kortlandt a while ago, but most I remember is that I was so disappointed with most arguments he put forward (not to mention some elementary mistakes like confusing Wielbark with Przeworsk) that I was really afraid that it will undermine my confidence in his previous works related to Balto-Slavic languages. Fortunately, most of his accomplishments in that field seem to stand the test of time.
[...]
Let’s maintain a sense of proportions here. Kortlandt and Mańczak can be viewed as a very small minority of linguists who support a close association between the Western and Eastern Germanic languages, as opposed to the Northern Germanic subgroup. By contrast, the vast majority of specialists sees the Eastern Germanic languages (including Gothic, being the best attested language in this group) as a distinctive branch that was relatively early separated from the remaining group, constituting the so-called North-Western branch (or dialectal continuity). For example, Gothic is the only well attested Germanic language that doesn’t show umlaut and rhotacism, two very characteristic innovations that are shared by all Western and Northern Germanic languages, including High German spoken in Southern Germany. Similarly, Gothic preserved multiple archaic features that have been lost in other early Germanic languages.



From an archaeological perspective, there are some deep differences between the Chernyakov ("Gothic") culture and Wilbark (pre- or 'north' Gothic) culture. For example - the basic economy (farming north vs pastoralist south), absence of "elite burials" in south vs absence of Roman-style stone-based houses in north, etc.
This Black Sea Coast subgroup of Chernyakov is usually considered to be represented by the Scyto-Sarmatian allies of the Goths, plus the Hellenic post-Roman population from the towns. The Goths themselves seem to have been associated with the so-called Kosanovo type that occupies the main part of the Chernyakov area. See Magomedov (The ethnic elements in Chernyakov culture, 2000) for more details.

Gravetto-Danubian
11-14-2015, 12:33 AM
Have you read this paper (and found it convincing)? I don't like to repeat myself but here is a fragment of my post from a similar discussion once held on the Molgen forum:

I read this short paper by Kortlandt a while ago, but most I remember is that I was so disappointed with most arguments he put forward (not to mention some elementary mistakes like confusing Wielbark with Przeworsk) that I was really afraid that it will undermine my confidence in his previous works related to Balto-Slavic languages. Fortunately, most of his accomplishments in that field seem to stand the test of time.
[...]
Let’s maintain a sense of proportions here. Kortlandt and Mańczak can be viewed as a very small minority of linguists who support a close association between the Western and Eastern Germanic languages, as opposed to the Northern Germanic subgroup. By contrast, the vast majority of specialists sees the Eastern Germanic languages (including Gothic, being the best attested language in this group) as a distinctive branch that was relatively early separated from the remaining group, constituting the so-called North-Western branch (or dialectal continuity). For example, Gothic is the only well attested Germanic language that doesn’t show umlaut and rhotacism, two very characteristic innovations that are shared by all Western and Northern Germanic languages, including High German spoken in Southern Germany. Similarly, Gothic preserved multiple archaic features that have been lost in other early Germanic languages.

Granted, he makes some basic mistakes - but he's not an archaeologist. And we always have to take a touch of salt Manczak's views - who at times appears to have the agenda of erasing any trace of Germani in polish history. But this doesn't detract from Kortlandt'a linguistic analyses . Indeed, even in a recent multi-volume compendium by German and Nordic scholars (The Nordic Languages: An International Handbook of the History ...), the Gothic -Nordic connections are far from overriding compared to western; and are essentially only shared retentions. Quite simply, there is no special Gothic-North Germanic relationship, and the only reason peope keep discussing it is due to jordanes' (false) evidence. This is not to deny the real and evident contacts between Scandinavia as the Black Sea which had always existed since the copper age



This Black Sea Coast subgroup of Chernyakov is usually considered to be represented by the Scyto-Sarmatian allies of the Goths, plus the Hellenic post-Roman population from the towns. The Goths themselves seem to have been associated with the so-called Kosanovo type that occupies the main part of the Chernyakov area. See Magomedov (The ethnic elements in Chernyakov culture, 2000) for more details.


Yes I'm acquainted with Magademov, who remains the authority on Chernyakov culture. In fact I have his entire 2001 book.

The problem with his- and that of other Russian scholars' - work is despite their excellent typological descriptions of pottery and fibulae, they're unfortunately Lag behind on their interpretative frameworks. They employ a very basic approach to identity in archaeology, and rather than waning, nationalistic influence on prehistory has sharply risen. ! (Just look at their manipulation of the Kiev culture).

Russian scholars see different burial rites or pottery vessels simply as a mirror of real "ethnic" differences without considering other factors or performing detailed contextual analyses. Whilst excelling in classifying, cataloging and dating, their descriptive contextual analyses are still wanting. In essence, the description of ethnic groups in southern Russian gothic era hasn't changed since the 1960s, with mounds being seen as "Sarmatians", wohsntallhauser being seen as the residencea of "Goths", wheelmade pottery as that of "Romanized Dacians". This utterly fails to go beyond and really understand how material culture was used to signal the various identities being created in the Chernyakov region.

The study of the Chernyakov culture is in some serious need of new blood- an injection of Anglo- American perspectives melded with the disciplined attention to detail of continental European and Russian archaeology- as has been done in Poland, Germnay and the Balkans, but not yet in Russia.

Tomenable
11-14-2015, 12:57 AM
Just look at their manipulation of the Kiev culture

Can you elaborate on this briefly? What kind of manipulation?

Gravetto-Danubian
11-14-2015, 01:16 AM
Can you elaborate on this briefly? What kind of manipulation?

Perhaps best discussed elsewhere - like origin of slavs

Tomenable
11-14-2015, 01:48 PM
The problem with his- and that of other Russian scholars' - work is despite their excellent typological descriptions of pottery and fibulae, they're unfortunately Lag behind on their interpretative frameworks. They employ a very basic approach to identity in archaeology

When you write "lag behind" you probably mean that they have not adopted the recently very "trendy" (maybe because it suits multicultural political ideologies?) in Western archaeology paradigm of assuming acculturation and rejecting sweeping migrations. However, I would not necessarily say that this different way of thinking, this different approach, is "lagging behind", because I don't necessarily agree that this paradigm is valid. Of course we cannot generalize by assuming that either all changes were due to replacement, or all due to acculturation.

Anyway - this new approach apparently even has a name, "Anti-Nazi archaeology":

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?5550-Integrating-New-Evidence-for-the-Origin-and-Spread-of-The-IE-Languages-11-10-14-10&p=118390&viewfull=1#post118390

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?5550-Integrating-New-Evidence-for-the-Origin-and-Spread-of-The-IE-Languages-11-10-14-10&p=118410&viewfull=1#post118410

I don't think political ideologies, no matter from which part of the spectrum, should be mixed with archaeology or history.

Gravetto-Danubian
11-14-2015, 02:16 PM
When you write "lag behind" you probably mean that they have not adopted the recently very "trendy" (maybe because it suits multicultural political ideologies?) in Western archaeology paradigm of assuming acculturation and rejecting sweeping migrations. However, I would not necessarily say that this different way of thinking, this different approach, is "lagging behind", because I don't necessarily agree that this paradigm is valid. Of course we cannot generalize by assuming that either all changes were due to replacement, or all due to acculturation.

Anyway - this new approach apparently even has a name, "Anti-Nazi archaeology":

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?5550-Integrating-New-Evidence-for-the-Origin-and-Spread-of-The-IE-Languages-11-10-14-10&p=118390&viewfull=1#post118390

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?5550-Integrating-New-Evidence-for-the-Origin-and-Spread-of-The-IE-Languages-11-10-14-10&p=118410&viewfull=1#post118410

I don't think political ideologies, no matter from which part of the spectrum, should be mixed with archaeology or history.

Of course. But my point wasn't about migration or not; as it certainly happened, and that's why we're all here talking about DNA.! :)

Rather, I think the actual analysis of chernyakov culture can be taken further as to how "Gothicness" was created; and what other identities existed. Because till now, it has been very culture-historical/ normative. Eg it assumes a one was a Goth if he /she wore a 'Gothic' fibula, or they were a Sarmatian of they were buried with a Sarmatian bead, etc. that is, they assumed artefacts were inherently "ethnic"- but on the contrary- only certain artefacts were actively selected to communicate identity; and this varied between person, region and period. what's more; archaeologists use the terms of the Romans - "Goths", carpi, Sarmatians which certainly do not match the realities in barbaricum itself.

In looking too eagerly yet superficially for resemblances between wielbark and chernyakov, it is overlooked that very different boundaries actually existed between the two worlds. This means that whilst some movement up and down the Bug certainly occurred; whoever the people were in the southern Baltic shore; they weren't "Goths"; only those on the Black Sea were.

Names like Geats/ Gotha etc appear in the Baltic and Scandinavia after the 4th century Pontic ones- due to historical prestige of the name- again mostly due to the famous story of Jordanes.

(My earlier remark about Kiev culture refers to apparent tensions in Russia between Slavic antiquities and those of non-Slavic groups in the regions east of the Dnieper and beyond).

So my remark isn't about taking an "immobilist" or lefty-pacifist stance, but abut post processualism. If you want to see what happens when a continental scholars (eg German) acquire some of the perspectives developed by western anthropologists- see Volker Heyds paper on the bell beakers etc.

parasar
11-24-2015, 03:19 AM
^ I'm quite disappointed that we still don't have info on exact subclades of most of those Bronze Age R1a samples from Europe.

In fact, I've noticed that Jean M on her website has even recently "reverted" some samples previously assigned to R1a:

RISE431 - used to be listed as R1a, now is listed as K(xLT)
RISE434 - used to be R1a, now is listed as P1
RISE436 - used to be R1a, now is listed as CT

Jean has also "reverted" one sample which used to be listed on her site as R1b, to the status of R1:

RISE560 - used to be R1b, now is listed as R1

I'm not sure why has she decided to change her mind on these samples (I guess previous information was from Genetiker?).

And from Mathieson 2015 we have some new samples, which are so far listed just as P1 or R1:

I1542/ESP33 - P1
I0246/SVP41 - P1
ROT1/I1530 - R1

Per Genetiker
https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2015/11/24/more-y-haplogroups-for-prehistoric-eurasian-genomes/
I1534 Germany Corded Ware R1a1a-M198
I1542 Germany Corded Ware R1a1a1-M417(xZ645)

Roger Wilco
02-21-2017, 08:45 PM
Greetings from Sweden; Excerpt from a post in "Looking for info on CTS4179 > YP1420" but since there is more activity I post here as well.

I've tested Y37-DNA at FTDNA and was originally classified as haplogroup R-M198, which later was specified as CTS4179. Since this is the subclade of L448, I've expected to be classified as belonging to the "Young Scandinavian branch" rather than the "Scottish" or "Old Viking". As recommended I've taken the Z284 SNP Pack to more narrow down my heritage. Results were expected now late in February or early March. Meanwhile however I've been classified as belonging to R-YP1420!

(Note: It seems like FTDA have completed the Z284 SNP Pack, and therefore the update to YP1420; Tests Taken Z284 SNP Pack (positive results): CTS4179+, L448+, S4458+, S5153+, S5301+, YP1420+, Z282+, Z283+, Z284+)

As far as I can see I'm the only one tested from Sweden at FTDNA so far having this haplogroup. Norway and Scotland being predominant (of 7 R-YP1420 NO 3, SCO 2, IRE 1) . The seven (7) of the 5,500+ tested in the database are therefore a very small and interesting group I seem to belong to. In the same groups are persons with R-M1982, R-Z283, R-L448, R-CTS4179 not being tested further, so additional persons may turn up.

My paternal ancestry as far back as my 8th and 9th great-grandfather all the way to my father, have been born and living in the same mid-central Swedish village since the early 1600's and maybe late 1500's.

Looking forward to learn more from your input. And what lies beyond YP1420, downstream?

//"Roger"

PS I pressed the wrong sex icon when I registered :-)

angscoire
02-22-2017, 09:00 AM
Greetings from Sweden; Excerpt from a post in "Looking for info on CTS4179 > YP1420" but since there is more activity I post here as well.

I've tested Y37-DNA at FTDNA and was originally classified as haplogroup R-M198, which later was specified as CTS4179. Since this is the subclade of L448, I've expected to be classified as belonging to the "Young Scandinavian branch" rather than the "Scottish" or "Old Viking". As recommended I've taken the Z284 SNP Pack to more narrow down my heritage. Results were expected now late in February or early March. Meanwhile however I've been classified as belonging to R-YP1420!

(Note: It seems like FTDA have completed the Z284 SNP Pack, and therefore the update to YP1420; Tests Taken Z284 SNP Pack (positive results): CTS4179+, L448+, S4458+, S5153+, S5301+, YP1420+, Z282+, Z283+, Z284+)

As far as I can see I'm the only one tested from Sweden at FTDNA so far having this haplogroup. Norway and Scotland being predominant (of 7 R-YP1420 NO 3, SCO 2, IRE 1) . The seven (7) of the 5,500+ tested in the database are therefore a very small and interesting group I seem to belong to. In the same groups are persons with R-M1982, R-Z283, R-L448, R-CTS4179 not being tested further, so additional persons may turn up.

My paternal ancestry as far back as my 8th and 9th great-grandfather all the way to my father, have been born and living in the same mid-central Swedish village since the early 1600's and maybe late 1500's.

Looking forward to learn more from your input. And what lies beyond YP1420, downstream?

//"Roger"

PS I pressed the wrong sex icon when I registered :-)

Glad to see a fellow CTS4179 on the forum ! I await the day when it is found in ancient DNA so we can get a better grasp of its history , and its subclades of course , although we can more or less predict what its story will be. A ton of Nordic Bronze Age to Viking era DNA will be required .I recall an article from a year or two ago which suggested that such a Viking project was underway - complete with photo of Viking remains and geneticist in Copenhagen I believe . I cannot locate the article again , nor have I heard anything about the project since .

PS As you can see I have no gender so I wouldn't worry about it.

angscoire
02-22-2017, 09:53 AM
Glad to see a fellow CTS4179 on the forum ! I await the day when it is found in ancient DNA so we can get a better grasp of its history , and its subclades of course , although we can more or less predict what its story will be. A ton of Nordic Bronze Age to Viking era DNA will be required .I recall an article from a year or two ago which suggested that such a Viking project was underway - complete with photo of Viking remains and geneticist in Copenhagen I believe . I cannot locate the article again , nor have I heard anything about the project since .

PS As you can see I have no gender so I wouldn't worry about it.

http://geogenetics.ku.dk/research_groups/willerslev/viking-dna/

Found it . I might email them to see what stage they are at in their research.

Roger Wilco
02-22-2017, 11:58 AM
Great ,thanks for the link to the viking-dna. I have looked at the FTDA chart, trying to understand where to go next (I assume the R1a project coordinators will advice), as the tests have come to the end of the road or....?

1. S4458+
1.1 S5301+
1.1.1 S5153+
1.1.1.1 L448+
1.1.1.1.1 CTS4179+
1.1.1.1.1.1 YP276- (incl. L176)
1.1.1.1.1.2 YP386*-
1.1.1.1.1.3 CLD52-
1.1.1.1.1.4 YP704-
1.1.1.1.1.5 YP1420+ --> Your Confirmed Haplogroup is R-YP1420.

14179

Is this the end of the road, as I'm L176 negative, I'm on the parallel road? Or will a Big Y-test reveal something beyond R-YP1420? Is there something confirmed beyond i.e. closer in time?

angscoire
02-22-2017, 01:10 PM
Great ,thanks for the link to the viking-dna. I have looked at the FTDA chart, trying to understand where to go next (I assume the R1a project coordinators will advice), as the tests have come to the end of the road or....?

1. S4458+
1.1 S5301+
1.1.1 S5153+
1.1.1.1 L448+
1.1.1.1.1 CTS4179+
1.1.1.1.1.1 YP276- (incl. L176)
1.1.1.1.1.2 YP386*-
1.1.1.1.1.3 CLD52-
1.1.1.1.1.4 YP704-
1.1.1.1.1.5 YP1420+ --> Your Confirmed Haplogroup is R-YP1420.

14179

Is this the end of the road, as I'm L176 negative, I'm on the parallel road? Or will a Big Y-test reveal something beyond R-YP1420? Is there something confirmed beyond i.e. closer in time?

It's never the end of the road . Have you seen or joined YFull ? . They can confirm SNP's , find more clades etc , a little better than FTDNA right now. See below.

https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-CTS4179/

Roger Wilco
02-22-2017, 01:40 PM
It's never the end of the road . Have you seen or joined YFull ? . They can confirm SNP's , find more clades etc , a little better than FTDNA right now. See below.

https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-CTS4179/

Thanks for the tip; no I've just browsed Yfull but don't think I'm member or uploaded data yet. Will surely try, once I've done my Big Y....!

angscoire
02-22-2017, 03:51 PM
Thanks for the tip; no I've just browsed Yfull but don't think I'm member or uploaded data yet. Will surely try, once I've done my Big Y....!

How about testing for YP5314 which is downstream of YP1420 as shown on the YFull tree ? If FTDNA don't provide it , you can request it from them, or maybe at YSeq .

Roger Wilco
02-22-2017, 05:44 PM
How about testing for YP5314 which is downstream of YP1420 as shown on the YFull tree ? If FTDNA don't provide it , you can request it from them, or maybe at YSeq .

Will try; got the same recommendation from Project R1a-coordinator; I didn't realize that YP5314 was a possibility until today...

angscoire
02-22-2017, 09:56 PM
http://geogenetics.ku.dk/research_groups/willerslev/viking-dna/

Found it . I might email them to see what stage they are at in their research.

The response was more or less - 'It's a big Project .Hopefully completed in 2018.'

Oathsworn
02-23-2017, 10:29 AM
Is there an up to date map of Scandinavian R1a Y-DNA and where it's found?

angscoire
02-24-2017, 10:59 AM
Is there an up to date map of Scandinavian R1a Y-DNA and where it's found?

Not really a new one no. Although I have seen detailed info on how Z284 subclades L448 and Z287 fare across Norway which may interest you.
Among Z284 nationwide , Z287 is dominant in 4 counties in a band spreading roughly from the west coast (Hordaland) through central parts (Oppland and Buskerud ) to the eastern border( Hedmark ) . L448 is dominant in 11 counties usually by substantial margins , particularly in the South (Agder , Rogaland , Telemark , Vestfold ) and in More Og Romsdal.

Oathsworn
02-24-2017, 11:52 AM
Not really a new one no. Although I have seen detailed info on how Z284 subclades L448 and Z287 fare across Norway which may interest you.
Among Z284 nationwide , Z287 is dominant in 4 counties in a band spreading roughly from the west coast (Hordaland) through central parts (Oppland and Buskerud ) to the eastern border( Hedmark ) . L448 is dominant in 11 counties usually by substantial margins , particularly in the South (Agder , Rogaland , Telemark , Vestfold ) and in More Og Romsdal.

So Z284 has an epicentre in Norway, and seems to have branched out to other scandinavian countries, in which then migrated to placed colonised and raided by the Vikings. Did Z284 folk migrate to Norway, or was it in Norway that Z284 had originated?

Roger Wilco
02-24-2017, 02:25 PM
Even if it's not updated http://sjolunds.se/dna-genealogi/?p=167 (from 2014), and in Swedish, the R1a overview of the Swedish branches of mainly Z284 gives you an idea which subclades exist in Sweden. The writer notes a regional pattern, similar to the Norwegian data:

"Regional patterns

It is interesting to see how the tree shows a number of regional "clusters":

- A western group that is visible in the bottom four Bohuslän lines, which seem to have spread upwards through Dalsland, Värmland (NB: bordering to Norway) and Västmanland.
- A mostly northern group in the upper part ("one o'clock" in the figure) belonging to the branch L448, but not the mutation CTS4179. There is certainly an undetected mutation that binds together these branches.
- The branch CTS4179 with a clear westerly extension.
- The branch CTS8401 that has a clear southerly extension.
- Even a mostly northern group diagonally down to the left ("eight o'clock in the image") of any branch Z287 / Z288, but where no further common mutation found yet."

angscoire
02-24-2017, 05:56 PM
So Z284 has an epicentre in Norway, and seems to have branched out to other scandinavian countries, in which then migrated to placed colonised and raided by the Vikings. Did Z284 folk migrate to Norway, or was it in Norway that Z284 had originated?

Probably did not originate in Norway , but further south . Bear in mind that a clade downstream of Z284 has been found in ancient remains in Denmark dating from around 4,500 years ago (Z284 - Z287 - CTS841 - Z281) , and autosomally he is Corded Ware. The best guess is that Z284 expanded rapidly northwards with Corded Ware and put down roots in Norway - where it has around 22% frequency nowadays . Almost all Norwegian R1a is under Z284 . No other country has anywhere near that amount (Denmark has around 6% , Sweden maybe a little more). Its biggest expansions probably occurred during the Nordic Bronze Age within Scandinavia (decent climate , trade links , etc ) and again in the Viking Age .

Paul_Johnsen
03-01-2017, 06:12 PM
Probably did not originate in Norway , but further south . Bear in mind that a clade downstream of Z284 has been found in ancient remains in Denmark dating from around 4,500 years ago (Z284 - Z287 - CTS841 - Z281) , and autosomally he is Corded Ware. The best guess is that Z284 expanded rapidly northwards with Corded Ware and put down roots in Norway - where it has around 22% frequency nowadays . Almost all Norwegian R1a is under Z284 . No other country has anywhere near that amount (Denmark has around 6% , Sweden maybe a little more). Its biggest expansions probably occurred during the Nordic Bronze Age within Scandinavia (decent climate , trade links , etc ) and again in the Viking Age .

I agree that Z284 certainly didn't originate in Norway, but some big subclades likely did.

Paul_Johnsen
03-01-2017, 06:28 PM
Not really a new one no. Although I have seen detailed info on how Z284 subclades L448 and Z287 fare across Norway which may interest you.
Among Z284 nationwide , Z287 is dominant in 4 counties in a band spreading roughly from the west coast (Hordaland) through central parts (Oppland and Buskerud ) to the eastern border( Hedmark ) . L448 is dominant in 11 counties usually by substantial margins , particularly in the South (Agder , Rogaland , Telemark , Vestfold ) and in More Og Romsdal.

Much of the southern L448 is likely to be YP384 (and of that most is probably YP412). YP384 is only estimated to be 1.400 years and YP412 is only estimated to be 900 years. If you remove this branch the distribution of Z287 vs L448 in Rogaland becomes much more even (although there will still probably be a majority of L448 in the south).

ÁNLEIFR
03-01-2017, 10:33 PM
Bear in mind that a clade downstream of Z284 has been found in ancient remains in Denmark dating from around 4,500 years ago (Z284 - Z287 - CTS841 - Z281) , and autosomally he is Corded Ware.

Thank you for this, I did not know about the Z284 ancient remain in Denmark! I agree, it did not originate in Norway. I have read though that Denmark is actually the cradle for the Germanics, future descendants venturing South and becoming the Saxons, Angles, Chatti and etc and their cousins ventured North into Sweden then across to Norway while some stayed in Denmark. Denmark also has the highest concentration of the borreby phenotype of any country in the world today.

angscoire
03-02-2017, 10:32 AM
Thank you for this, I did not know about the Z284 ancient remain in Denmark! I agree, it did not originate in Norway. I have read though that Denmark is actually the cradle for the Germanics, future descendants venturing South and becoming the Saxons, Angles, Chatti and etc and their cousins ventured North into Sweden then across to Norway while some stayed in Denmark. Denmark also has the highest concentration of the borreby phenotype of any country in the world today.

Also , another Corded Ware R1a has been found in Sweden from the same period which adds more legitimacy to the notion of R1a spreading into Scandinavia with Corded Ware .

The Viking paper will be most welcome but we need a lot more from Scandinavia (Mesolithic , Neolithic , Bronze Age samples).

I know you didn't make any claims for this but I will mention it anyway ; I doubt Z284 played much of a role spreading Germanic languages south or west from Denmark and Southern Sweden . Its frequency levels are extremely low to non-existant in Germany, the Low Countries , Austria , Switzerland ,which suggests it was pre-dominantly found much further north in the late Iron Age through to the early Germanic Migration period - the era's when Germanic languages were spreading from Jastorf, etc.

angscoire
05-12-2017, 06:54 PM
Thank you for this, I did not know about the Z284 ancient remain in Denmark! I agree, it did not originate in Norway. I have read though that Denmark is actually the cradle for the Germanics, future descendants venturing South and becoming the Saxons, Angles, Chatti and etc and their cousins ventured North into Sweden then across to Norway while some stayed in Denmark. Denmark also has the highest concentration of the borreby phenotype of any country in the world today.

It is also worth pointing out that no R1a was found in any of the dozens of British samples dating from the Neolithic onwards in the new Beaker paper . Not even in Scotland , where R1a reaches its highest rates in the Isles.
There are more ancient Scottish samples on the way apparently , and you never know what might show up, but it looks more likely that the bulk of modern British R1a derives from Germanics as long suspected.

angscoire
05-14-2017, 03:34 PM
If one analyses the Scottish data in detail you will see that they sampled 21 Neolithic Scottish males from the places where R1a (and Norse ancestry in general) is at its highest rates in the Isles - Orkney , Caithness , Argyll and Bute - and they all turned out to be I2a or I2b . Also ,4 Bronze Age males were analyzed from the Lowlands and found to be R1b , while a BA sample from Lewis (again an area rich in Norse heritage) still turned out to be I2 . The Netherlands and the rest of Britain followed a similar pattern. And no R1a has shown up in Scandinavia until Corded Ware .

I stress this only because there was a theory that R1a (specifically its clades L664 and Z284 ) was a sort of Doggerland-North Sea Mesolithic relic . But the North Sea region has been extensively sampled ,and R1a hasn't materialized until Corded Ware/Battle Axe Culture , specfically in Denmark and Sweden ,and found nowhere west of that ,either before or immediately afterwards . So where does it leave that Doggerland theory ? I would however still like to see a lot more from Scandinavia ,from the Mesolithic to the Viking Age.

angscoire
12-02-2017, 12:19 PM
Even if it's not updated http://sjolunds.se/dna-genealogi/?p=167 (from 2014), and in Swedish, the R1a overview of the Swedish branches of mainly Z284 gives you an idea which subclades exist in Sweden. The writer notes a regional pattern, similar to the Norwegian data:

"Regional patterns

It is interesting to see how the tree shows a number of regional "clusters":

- A western group that is visible in the bottom four Bohuslän lines, which seem to have spread upwards through Dalsland, Värmland (NB: bordering to Norway) and Västmanland.
- A mostly northern group in the upper part ("one o'clock" in the figure) belonging to the branch L448, but not the mutation CTS4179. There is certainly an undetected mutation that binds together these branches.
- The branch CTS4179 with a clear westerly extension.
- The branch CTS8401 that has a clear southerly extension.
- Even a mostly northern group diagonally down to the left ("eight o'clock in the image") of any branch Z287 / Z288, but where no further common mutation found yet."

I worked on some data recently , related to the discussion , simply by using various FTDNA group data . It provides a basic understanding of Z284 and its clades by country .

Z284 Scandinavian overall frequency % : NOR 18 , SWE 8 , DEN 6.6
CTS4179 Fenno-Scandia dispersal % : NOR 61 , SWE 28 , FIN 8.5 , DEN 1.1
CTS4179 subclade Scandinavian breakdown % : YP386 =47 , YP704 =27 , YP1420 =11 , YP276 =3.5

Z284 subclades overall frequency in NOR % : L448 = 8.7 , Z287 =7.1 , CTS4179 =4.8 , YP355 2.2
CTS4179 subclade breakdown in NOR % : YP386 =56, YP1420 =17, YP704 =14, CTS4179* =5.6 , YP276 = 4.2

CTS4179 subclade breakdown in SWE % : YP704 =43 , YP386 =37.5 , CTS4179* =12.5, YP1420 =3.1 , YP276 =3.1

Z284 in Scotland : dominated by L448 ( at least 80% % of it). Its cousin clade Z287 accounts for around 17% of Z284 .
L448 is in turn represented most heavily by its subclade CTS4179 which accounts for 60-64% of all Scottish Z284 , whereas its 'cousin' YP355 accounts for just 9% overall.
The biggest subclade of CTS4179 in Scotland is easily YP276 . At least 50% of Scottish Z284 falls under this branch.

12-02-2017, 08:48 PM
Still no further along where my R-Z283 originated, and how it got to Britain and Ireland, according to my Big Y results. It is Negative for all known subclades downstream of R-Z283, so its a New Branch in the tree below R-Z283, just waiting for a match to test before it’s defined, could be a long wait....

ÁNLEIFR
12-20-2017, 06:05 PM
Still no further along where my R-Z283 originated, and how it got to Britain and Ireland, according to my Big Y results. It is Negative for all known subclades downstream of R-Z283, so its a New Branch in the tree below R-Z283, just waiting for a match to test before it’s defined, could be a long wait....

I hear you! It has confirmed to come from Norway for a few years now but how and when it got to the Isles is still a mystery, well I mean we know how it got there but not times in specific parts like in England and etc.

angscoire
01-16-2018, 12:41 PM
For those who didn't see it , see below.

http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.2003703

Same old story for Mesolithic Scandinavia . 2 males from Norway , 1 from Gotland . I2 total dominance among hunter gatherers. So Pre-I1 nearby before exploding in the 3rd millennium BCE, and R1a still on the steppe .