PDA

View Full Version : R1b-U106 in Swedish Battle Axe Culture (a Corded Ware subgroup)



rms2
06-15-2015, 04:04 PM
Here (https://drive.google.com/a/acps.k12.va.us/file/d/0B9vzsK0Ig1mNdlB4LTgzN2ZMNW8/view) is a nice document of y-dna results put together by Jean M from the recent Allentoft et al paper.

Notice that RISE98 of the Swedish Battle Axe culture, a Scandinavian Corded Ware subgroup, is R1b-U106?

That strikes me as a pretty exciting result, although I am not U106+ myself. IMHO, it tends to confirm the apparent very long term connection between U106 and the evolution of Germanic.

Congratulations, cousins! :)

can't_lurk_no_mo'
06-15-2015, 06:58 PM
I'm interested in learning more about RISE98. With what artifacts was he buried? With whom was he buried? He might be my great something-or-other grandpappy. BTW, is there a mtDNA haplogroup for him?

rms2
06-15-2015, 07:17 PM
I'm interested in learning more about RISE98. With what artifacts was he buried? With whom was he buried? He might be my great something-or-other grandpappy. BTW, is there a mtDNA haplogroup for him?

You can see some of the details on page 12 of 46 here (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v522/n7555/extref/nature14507-s1.pdf). I'm sure there must have been some identifying artifacts that enabled a connection to be made between this individual and the Swedish Battle Axe Culture, but I don't yet know what they were.

The date range for his remains is 2275-2032 BC.

Jean M
06-15-2015, 07:29 PM
I'm interested in learning more about RISE98. With what artifacts was he buried? With whom was he buried? He might be my great something-or-other grandpappy. BTW, is there a mtDNA haplogroup for him?

His mtDNA haplogroup was K1b1a1. He was buried at Lilla Beddinge in grave 49. Here is Battle Axe Culture pottery from that cemetery. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corded_Ware_culture#/media/File:Stridsyxekeramik.jpg

Krefter
06-15-2015, 07:35 PM
My mom has U106 and my dad P312(DF27). So, both clades of R1b-L11.

Jean M
06-15-2015, 07:43 PM
With what artifacts was he buried? With whom was he buried?

Lilla Bedinge in southern Scania comprises the largest known cemetery associated with the Swedish Battle Axe Culture. The site, extending over an area of about 240×30 m, is located only about 1 km from the present day coast line. The majority of the at least 14 identified and excavated flat earth inhumations graves are located on a NE–SW oriented moraine embankment, whereas four of the graves are found on the flatter grounds to the SE. The site also includes a number of Late Bronze Age cremation graves, and two other find spots for BAC inhumation graves are known in the nearby region....

Grave 49 was excavated by Hansen 1934. It constitutes a N–S oriented subsurface oval stone construction with pointed edges, measuring about 4.5×2 m, where flat stone slabs form a roof over a chamber with an original height estimated to about 0.6–0.7 m. Fragments of wood indicate the presence of planks in the chamber. On the stone paved floor of the chamber three adult individuals had been placed in a line in sitting crouched positions facing southwest. Between the northern and middle skeleton fragmented remains of three children (initially only two were identified), representing two infants and a juvenile, were recovered. Further, some very brittle diaphyses of a fourth adult have been identified. The only recovered find is a bone needle deposited next to the northern skeleton (Hansen 1934; Malmer 1962:162p ; During unpublished notes). According to Malmer (2002:141) the grave can be dated to Period 4, and an unpublished radiocarbon date from the northern skeleton falls within the interval 2580–1980 cal. BC (2σ, 3850±105 BP, Ua-2758, During unpublished notes).

http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:439410/FULLTEXT01.pdf

Cofgene
06-15-2015, 09:44 PM
Yes. RISE98 is U106+ and currently 5 private SNPs have been identified. 2 - well maybe 3 - of these SNPs are not covered by existing Big-Y results so there will be some additional testing occurring if their regions can be sequenced at YSEQ. Details of the RISE98 BAM file analysis will come from others. :dance:

alan
06-15-2015, 10:45 PM
Yes. RISE98 is U106+ and currently 5 private SNPs have been identified. 2 - well maybe 3 - of these SNPs are not covered by existing Big-Y results so there will be some additional testing occurring if their regions can be sequenced at YSEQ. Details of the RISE98 BAM file analysis will come from others. :dance:

if there are at least 5 private MPs after U106 in a burial with dates centred around 2300BC then it does at least help put a minimum age on U106.

MJost
06-16-2015, 01:20 AM
if there are at least 5 private MPs after U106 in a burial with dates centred around 2300BC then it does at least help put a minimum age on U106.

Good question.

If I can assume the following that there are 130 SNPs from 'R' to U106, and we now have a upper and lower SNP ages, then:

If MA-1, a four year old boy when he died, cal 24000 ybp had five ancestral SNPs back to 'R' and had 35 private derived SNPs for a total number of 40 below "R". From that node down to P312/U106 node amounts to 90 SNPs.

Add that U106+ RISE98 has five derived SNPs for 95 total and is dated to middle age of 2153.5 cal BC (2275 BC and 2032 BC). The difference of years between MA-1 and RISE98 is 19846.5 years.

The average years per SNP is 208.9 years. Add back five derived SNPs total of 1044.6 years back to U106 which would be 5,198 ybp (3,198 bc), if all of this holds up.

MJost

VinceT
06-16-2015, 01:53 AM
Yes. RISE98 is U106+ and currently 5 private SNPs have been identified. 2 - well maybe 3 - of these SNPs are not covered by existing Big-Y results so there will be some additional testing occurring if their regions can be sequenced at YSEQ. Details of the RISE98 BAM file analysis will come from others. :dance:

I've been gobsmacked about this all day! Greg Magoon has already ran it through the FGC analysis pipeline, and as cofgene stated, identified 5 "high-reliability" private SNPs - if you can call 4000+ year-old SNPs "private". :)

Y:7189712 G>T = FGC36477+
Y:8876940 A>G = FGC36478+
Y:9925446 G>A = FGC36479+
Y:13397473 C>A = FGC36480+ (rs111331790)
Y:13412040 C>T = FGC36481+ (rs76331798)

The latter 2 are in or near the centromeric region and may be unstable (-- the existing rs-identifiers are a clue), but as cofgene said, they've all been submitted to YSEQ, so we'll have to see what Thomas Krahn has to say in the days ahead.

But if there are three or five SNPs, they do suggest that U106 is definitely older than the dates provided by the C14 analysis, and suggests an earlier relationship between Corded Ware / Swedish Battle Axe and the Bell-Beaker graves of south-east Germany.

MJost
06-16-2015, 01:56 AM
Note: I used the YFull list of "R" SNPs to down to the DF13 block.

I have used my own Full Genome NGS 27 Sanger vaildated SNPs under the DF13 (block of 2) and I am getting 190.5 years per SNP to present where my last of two private SNPs date to my birth. 190.5 figure would expect at least 14 derived SNPs for the RISE98's date of 2153.5 cal BC.


Using the reference rates from:

Defining a New Rate Constant
for Y-Chromosome SNPs based
on Full Sequencing Data
http://ru.rjgg.org

I aged the list of A0-T to present SNPs but I needed to recalibrated the mutation rate to match my manual SNP dating:

MJost Recal Rate was: 6.24E-10 (instead of Adamov_et al. (2015) Rate: 8.2E-10)
All AO-T to present (adding my DF13>DF5494 subclade -27 Sanger vaildated) SNPs: 1889
Full Y - NGS Genome Length Coverage: 8473821
YPerSNP: 189.12

This is very close match to SNP count calibration with MA-1 24000 ybp age to
my birth year which calculates to 190.5 years per SNP.

If U106 using 208.9 years per SNP and length stays the same would require the mutation rate to be 5.65E-10 or 0.000000000565.


MJost

lgmayka
06-16-2015, 02:08 AM
if there are at least 5 private MPs after U106 in a burial with dates centred around 2300BC then it does at least help put a minimum age on U106.
Interestingly, YFull has just raised their TMRCA for R-U106 (http://yfull.com/tree/R-U106/), to 5100 ybp. This adjustment must be very recent because the "formation" date is still the previous 4900 ybp.

MJost
06-16-2015, 02:42 AM
Interestingly, YFull has just raised their TMRCA for R-U106 (http://yfull.com/tree/R-U106/), to 5100 ybp. This adjustment must be very recent because the "formation" date is still the previous 4900 ybp.

Nice. My manual aging MA-1 and RISE98 calibration is very close 5,198 ybp (3,198 bc).

MJost

Krefter
06-16-2015, 03:57 AM
Is the Battle Axe U106, negative for all basal U106 subclades? So U106*.

VinceT
06-16-2015, 06:08 AM
Is the Battle Axe U106, negative for all basal U106 subclades? So U106*.

By all appearances, RISE98 may belong to an extinct subclade of R-U106. However, any R-U106* man with an unusual haplotype is certainly encouraged to test the previously mentioned FGC markers at YSEQ.

His top-tier SNP calls for U106 and immediate subclades:

POS MUT CALL ID

R-U106*:
8796078 C>T T+ M405/U106/S21
13707988 A>T T+ Z2265

R-FGC3861:
8412012 C>T C- Z8052/FGC7915
15779994 C>T ? Z8056/FGC3861
15850306 G>C G- Z8057/FGC3854
18413945 C>T ? FGC3865/Y2407
18645737 C>T ? Z8058/FGC7914

R-Z18:
5791336 C>T ? Z8183
5586731 A>G ? S261/YSC0000052/Z16
5605924 C>T C- S5126/Z368
14991735 G>A G- S493/YSC0000053/Z18
19376214 G>T G- YSC0000054/Z19
21380481 C>G ? Z369
22804943 G>T ? Z370
28476394 A>G ? S262/Z371

R-Z381:
7246726 C>T C- Z381/S263

R-FGC396:
3152387 T>C ? FGC390
3762127 A>G ? FGC391
6997451 C>T C- FGC396/Y3444
8264885 A>G A- FGC400/Y3446
8970854 A>C ? FGC7511
9159949 T>A ? FGC403/Y3447
13348798 T>G ? FGC407
13391229 T>C T- FGC408
13714709 T>A T- A278
17675392 C>T C- FGC416
21551794 C>T ? FGC422
22477071 T>C T- FGC424/PF1185
22839417 C>T C- FGC425
22971081 G>A G- FGC426/Y3452
23241162 C>T C- FGC427/Y3453
23842088 A>G ? FGC429/Y3443

R-S12025:
3079774 T>G ? S8507
8860083 C>T C- S12025
14586883 T>G ? S16185
17456545 T>G T- S19739
17548351 A>G ? S19882

R-S11493 (not on ISOGG tree)
8464434 G>A G- S11493
13989289 G>T G- S15284
16368957 G>T ? S18208
17360022 A>G A- S19589
21719747 T>G T- S23465
23282505 G>A G- S25416
24410775 G>A G- S26140

R-S18632 (not on ISOGG tree)
16670061 G>C G- S18632
17951958 C>T C- S20434
18705221 G>A ? S21183
18945748 C>T C- S21514

R-A2150 (not on ISOGG tree)
6823524 A>G A- A2147
7747602 G>A G- A2148
9849392 C>G C- A2149
18764397 G>A G- A2150
18910212 T>C T- A2151
18930965 C>T C- PH4098
18954108 A>G ? A2152
23836840 C>T ? A2153

alan
06-16-2015, 07:06 AM
Interestingly, YFull has just raised their TMRCA for R-U106 (http://yfull.com/tree/R-U106/), to 5100 ybp. This adjustment must be very recent because the "formation" date is still the previous 4900 ybp.

Any date around 3000BC for U106 plus a presence at the end of the CW northern trail would seem to have major implication for the location of both U106 and L11 in general around 3000BC. By total coincidence before this result was known I was reading a little about battle axe and related burials in southern Sweden and north Poland and it was amazing how many points of similarity they have to the classic beaker burial traditions - N-S oriented flat graves with the body flexed on its side facing east, with strict gender division about which side they lay (albeit the gender based choice of side they lay one was reversed compared to beaker) and usually a pot and other finds with them. While they are clearly not identical the similarities in beliefs are clearly drawing on the shared ancestral ones. Finding U106 in battle axe proves that at least some of the battle axe and beaker people did share ancestry as their shared L11 node makes clear.

alan
06-16-2015, 07:36 AM
This of course poses the major question of where all L11 was located before CW and beaker existed. U106 now appears to be at least a little older than Corded Ware (the oldest RC dates having been rejected). From memory too there is a small concentration of L11* on the Baltic too - perhaps fellow travelers? I would still feel though that the rarity of R1b in CW could imply that L11 was in a culture bordering but not within the CW genesis core which seems to have been an R1a area. That way the odd R1b person could have entered the area during its formation. The most rational geographical explanation is that L11 was just down river from the Middle Dnieper area c. 3000BC just before the Yamnaya expansions westwards out of the steppes took place. That of course would set up L11 for a nice split between the U106 branch heading north and the P312 branch heading west though central Europe. However this simply increases the question of what happened to P312 in terms of the culture that carried it west. Yamnaya only takes us as far west as Hungary.

One possibility is that P312 could have been carried some distance down the Danube by Yamnaya and then passed into or through CW around the Hungary-Austria-Czech zone c. 2800BC reaching its south-west extent in Switzerland c. 2750BC before passing further west towards Iberia via a Rhone to Med to Iberia route. However, it now become even more important to get DNA from beaker in Iberia across the beaker period from the very earliest burials to later ones to confirm or deny that R1b was connected to beaker pots from the inception c. 2700BC or just before.

Clinton P
06-16-2015, 12:18 PM
Here are my position data for the 5 "high-reliability" private SNPs

7189712 20G (G>T = FGC36477+)
8876940 46A (A>G = FGC36478+)
9925446 46G 2DEL (G>A = FGC36479+)
13397473 1A 15C (C>A = FGC36480+ (rs111331790))
13412040 10T 22C (C>T = FGC36481+ (rs76331798))

Clinton P

rms2
06-16-2015, 12:37 PM
. . .

One possibility is that P312 could have been carried some distance down the Danube by Yamnaya and then passed into or through CW around the Hungary-Austria-Czech zone c. 2800BC reaching its south-west extent in Switzerland c. 2750BC before passing further west towards Iberia via a Rhone to Med to Iberia route. However, it now become even more important to get DNA from beaker in Iberia across the beaker period from the very earliest burials to later ones to confirm or deny that R1b was connected to beaker pots from the inception c. 2700BC or just before.

I know I am repeating myself, but it would also be really really nice if someone would get some y-dna from some of the thousands of Yamnaya kurgans in eastern Hungary.

jdean
06-16-2015, 04:21 PM
By all appearances, RISE98 may belong to an extinct subclade of R-U106. However, any R-U106* man with an unusual haplotype is certainly encouraged to test the previously mentioned FGC markers at YSEQ.

If I'd read your post beforehand I might not have bothered but I ran a comparison against all the U106 BigYs I have on my computer this morning (just shy of 400) and came up with zip : )

MJost
06-16-2015, 04:24 PM
Well with the appearance that U106/P312 is much older than previously considered, brings up a big question as to how U106 (And P312) got that far west into Central Europe in so short amount of time. Here is some over view events and dates to consider.

R1b-M343/PF6242 (R1a split) Rudnichnyy rayon, Kemerovo, Kemerovskaya oblast' (1460km west of MA-1 site*) 16,149 BC.

R1b1a-P297/PF6398 (V88 Branch split) Gusinyy Brod, Novosibirskaya oblast' (1679km) 15,387 BC.

R1b1a2-M269/PF6517 block of 38 SNPs (M73, M478 Branch split) Duplenskaya, Novosibirskaya oblast', Russia (1792km) 14,815 BC.

Holocene 9700BC-present, end of Ice Age.

Around the 30th of 38 M269 block of SNPs just east of the Urals 9,100 BC.

I am seeing R1b1a2a-L23/S141/PF6534 appears to have appeared west of the Urals, Southwest of Novaya, Respublika Bashkortostan, Russia Chishminsky District 54.679970, 55.325795 ~7,576 BC, 3600km west of Lake Bailak, Irkutskaya oblast', Russia.

R1b1a2a1-L51/M412/S167/PF6536 (R-Z2103 branched) appears to have appeared around Lopatino, Samarskaya oblast', Russia Lebyazhinka - Sok River (3708km) 7,195 BC.

That all sets the stage that L11's block of seven SNPs begins 6400bc at or just west and/or south of the Lebyazhinka-IV Sok River site. With no horses, wheeled transportation they were still in a hunter gather society.

8.2Ky (6200 bc) Event for ~400 yrs cooling was 3.3 deg C (decadal average) in less than ~20 years.

Three SNPs into the L11 Block of seven, the 8.2Ky event ended ~7800ybp (5800 bc) and farming expands into Balkins/Turkey.

Later at the site Lebyazhinka-IV Sok River, a ‘Samara hunter-gatherer’ I0124-Basal L278* was date 5640-5555 calBCE centuries before the appearance of domesticated animals in the middle Volga region Lebyazhinka, Samarskaya oblast', Russia. This would require an assumption that there would be at least 11 to 12 SNPs below the node level of L23 with this dating.

Farming extends up into the Steeps and against the Western Urals. Spain's I0410 Basal M415* {V88?} dated at 5178-5066 cal BCE.

P311/S128/PF6545 would be dated around 5,100 BC with U106 very quickly arrived with in a few generations.

So over 1200 year period L11 moved west and setup shop in north central Europe with burial sites such as Baalberge_MN Quedlinburg I0559 R* 3645-3537 cal BCE.

Yamna culture start 3600bc. Highly mobile steppe culture of pastoral nomads relying heavily on cattle (dairy farming). Sheep were also kept for their wool. Hunting, fishing and sporadic agriculture was practiced near rivers.

Bell Beaker culture start Central Europe 2800bc.

Kromsdorf 2 - grave#5: R1b-M269+ S21/U106- & grave#8: R1b~M343+ M269? xS21/U106 [2,600–2,500 cal BC (2 SD)].

BB Central Euro 2500bc. Actual wheels from northern Europe by 2500 bc.

4.2K year Climate event lasting ~100. Yamna culture end 2300bc. CWC end 2350 Cal bc. Unetice culture start 2300bc.

U106 w/five derived SNPs buried in Lilla Beddinge in southern Sweden 2275 BC and 2032 BC.

Tin in Brittany, Devon and Cornwall, and in the Iberian Peninsula around 2000 BC. Chariot burials dated c. 2000 BCE.

Bell Beaker culture end 1800bc & Unetice culture end 1600bc. The transition from Early Bronze Age to Middle Bronze Age in Central and southeastern Europe 1600BC, Heuneburg fortified 16th century BC.

So how did U106 and P312 under P310 get into central Europe so quickly?


MJost

MJost
06-16-2015, 06:31 PM
Here are my position data for the 5 "high-reliability" private SNPs

7189712 20G (G>T = FGC36477+)
8876940 46A (A>G = FGC36478+)
9925446 46G 2DEL (G>A = FGC36479+)
13397473 1A 15C (C>A = FGC36480+ (rs111331790))
13412040 10T 22C (C>T = FGC36481+ (rs76331798))

Clinton P
FYI - BigY Coverage




Count Rows:
Count CombBED SNPs:




5
2


SNP Name
POS-REF-ALT
POS
in CombBED Y/N (1/0)?


FGC36477
7189712
7189712
1


FGC36478
8876940
8876940
1


FGC36479
9925446
9925446
0


FGC36480
13397473
13397473
0


FGC36481
13412040
13412040
0



Ascii version of chart
SNP Name POS-REF-ALT POS in CombBED Y/N (1/0)?
FGC36477 7189712 7189712 1
FGC36478 8876940 8876940 1
FGC36479 9925446 9925446 0
FGC36480 13397473 13397473 0
FGC36481 13412040 13412040 0

MJost

alan
06-16-2015, 10:20 PM
Well with the appearance that U106/P312 is much older than previously considered, brings up a big question as to how U106 (And P312) got that far west into Central Europe in so short amount of time. Here is some over view events and dates to consider.

R1b-M343/PF6242 (R1a split) Rudnichnyy rayon, Kemerovo, Kemerovskaya oblast' (1460km west of MA-1 site*) 16,149 BC.

R1b1a-P297/PF6398 (V88 Branch split) Gusinyy Brod, Novosibirskaya oblast' (1679km) 15,387 BC.

R1b1a2-M269/PF6517 block of 38 SNPs (M73, M478 Branch split) Duplenskaya, Novosibirskaya oblast', Russia (1792km) 14,815 BC.

Holocene 9700BC-present, end of Ice Age.

Around the 30th of 38 M269 block of SNPs just east of the Urals 9,100 BC.

I am seeing R1b1a2a-L23/S141/PF6534 appears to have appeared west of the Urals, Southwest of Novaya, Respublika Bashkortostan, Russia Chishminsky District 54.679970, 55.325795 ~7,576 BC, 3600km west of Lake Bailak, Irkutskaya oblast', Russia.

R1b1a2a1-L51/M412/S167/PF6536 (R-Z2103 branched) appears to have appeared around Lopatino, Samarskaya oblast', Russia Lebyazhinka - Sok River (3708km) 7,195 BC.

That all sets the stage that L11's block of seven SNPs begins 6400bc at or just west and/or south of the Lebyazhinka-IV Sok River site. With no horses, wheeled transportation they were still in a hunter gather society.

8.2Ky (6200 bc) Event for ~400 yrs cooling was 3.3 deg C (decadal average) in less than ~20 years.

Three SNPs into the L11 Block of seven, the 8.2Ky event ended ~7800ybp (5800 bc) and farming expands into Balkins/Turkey.

Later at the site Lebyazhinka-IV Sok River, a ‘Samara hunter-gatherer’ I0124-Basal L278* was date 5640-5555 calBCE centuries before the appearance of domesticated animals in the middle Volga region Lebyazhinka, Samarskaya oblast', Russia. This would require an assumption that there would be at least 11 to 12 SNPs below the node level of L23 with this dating.

Farming extends up into the Steeps and against the Western Urals. Spain's I0410 Basal M415* {V88?} dated at 5178-5066 cal BCE.

P311/S128/PF6545 would be dated around 5,100 BC with U106 very quickly arrived with in a few generations.

So over 1200 year period L11 moved west and setup shop in north central Europe with burial sites such as Baalberge_MN Quedlinburg I0559 R* 3645-3537 cal BCE.

Yamna culture start 3600bc. Highly mobile steppe culture of pastoral nomads relying heavily on cattle (dairy farming). Sheep were also kept for their wool. Hunting, fishing and sporadic agriculture was practiced near rivers.

Bell Beaker culture start Central Europe 2800bc.

Kromsdorf 2 - grave#5: R1b-M269+ S21/U106- & grave#8: R1b~M343+ M269? xS21/U106 [2,600–2,500 cal BC (2 SD)].

BB Central Euro 2500bc. Actual wheels from northern Europe by 2500 bc.

4.2K year Climate event lasting ~100. Yamna culture end 2300bc. CWC end 2350 Cal bc. Unetice culture start 2300bc.

U106 w/five derived SNPs buried in Lilla Beddinge in southern Sweden 2275 BC and 2032 BC.

Tin in Brittany, Devon and Cornwall, and in the Iberian Peninsula around 2000 BC. Chariot burials dated c. 2000 BCE.

Bell Beaker culture end 1800bc & Unetice culture end 1600bc. The transition from Early Bronze Age to Middle Bronze Age in Central and southeastern Europe 1600BC, Heuneburg fortified 16th century BC.

So how did U106 and P312 under P310 get into central Europe so quickly?


MJost

Over the last year as its become clear that they and L11 are older than thought, that has been a game changer in terms of options. When we were being told they dated to 2500BC and L11 was only fractionally older it was painted a totally different picture and options. If U106 and P312 date to around 3000BC and U106 and other R1b are in corded ware as well as bell beaker and a cousin of L51 is dominating Yamnaya west of Don then it really does look like L51, L11 and even early P312 and U106 (perhaps) probably originated in the Ukraine. Its hard to see any other way a dual west and north trajectory could be taken into those cultures. The only other option for a split in L11 going west and north is that L11 as a whole went through Corded Ware. I doubt that personally because L11 looks like a small minority in CW and perhaps has bled into that culture from an adjacent one where it was more common.

As to how did it get across central Europe so fast, the two options are up the Danube to Hungary in Yamnaya which unfortunately doesnt take us further west in a self evident way OR it could have gone through the area north of the Danube via corded ware which at least has the advantage of reaching as far SW as Switzerland. A combination of both is even possible. However we dont actually know for a fact that P312 was attached to the earliest beaker in Iberia as yet. We only know that it was in central Europe.

P312 have could have been in Iberia as the causal factor in the inception of beaker, in which case the path into Iberia was incredibly lightly trod and the movement was around the same time as the arrival of CW in Switzerland. However it is also possible that P312 wasnt. Its too complex a culture to work this out with certainty without ancient DNA.

I favour the notion now that beaker itself in Iberia is manifestation of central Europeans with at least a partly CW heritage, perhaps a specialist group and certainly a founder effect, arriving c. 2750-2700BC. This doesnt mean the group was mainstream CW or even CW in origin but it almost certainly spent a generation or so passing through corded ware territory to get to the west.

alan
06-16-2015, 10:24 PM
Well with the appearance that U106/P312 is much older than previously considered, brings up a big question as to how U106 (And P312) got that far west into Central Europe in so short amount of time. Here is some over view events and dates to consider.

R1b-M343/PF6242 (R1a split) Rudnichnyy rayon, Kemerovo, Kemerovskaya oblast' (1460km west of MA-1 site*) 16,149 BC.

R1b1a-P297/PF6398 (V88 Branch split) Gusinyy Brod, Novosibirskaya oblast' (1679km) 15,387 BC.

R1b1a2-M269/PF6517 block of 38 SNPs (M73, M478 Branch split) Duplenskaya, Novosibirskaya oblast', Russia (1792km) 14,815 BC.

Holocene 9700BC-present, end of Ice Age.

Around the 30th of 38 M269 block of SNPs just east of the Urals 9,100 BC.

I am seeing R1b1a2a-L23/S141/PF6534 appears to have appeared west of the Urals, Southwest of Novaya, Respublika Bashkortostan, Russia Chishminsky District 54.679970, 55.325795 ~7,576 BC, 3600km west of Lake Bailak, Irkutskaya oblast', Russia.

R1b1a2a1-L51/M412/S167/PF6536 (R-Z2103 branched) appears to have appeared around Lopatino, Samarskaya oblast', Russia Lebyazhinka - Sok River (3708km) 7,195 BC.

That all sets the stage that L11's block of seven SNPs begins 6400bc at or just west and/or south of the Lebyazhinka-IV Sok River site. With no horses, wheeled transportation they were still in a hunter gather society.

8.2Ky (6200 bc) Event for ~400 yrs cooling was 3.3 deg C (decadal average) in less than ~20 years.

Three SNPs into the L11 Block of seven, the 8.2Ky event ended ~7800ybp (5800 bc) and farming expands into Balkins/Turkey.

Later at the site Lebyazhinka-IV Sok River, a ‘Samara hunter-gatherer’ I0124-Basal L278* was date 5640-5555 calBCE centuries before the appearance of domesticated animals in the middle Volga region Lebyazhinka, Samarskaya oblast', Russia. This would require an assumption that there would be at least 11 to 12 SNPs below the node level of L23 with this dating.

Farming extends up into the Steeps and against the Western Urals. Spain's I0410 Basal M415* {V88?} dated at 5178-5066 cal BCE.

P311/S128/PF6545 would be dated around 5,100 BC with U106 very quickly arrived with in a few generations.

So over 1200 year period L11 moved west and setup shop in north central Europe with burial sites such as Baalberge_MN Quedlinburg I0559 R* 3645-3537 cal BCE.

Yamna culture start 3600bc. Highly mobile steppe culture of pastoral nomads relying heavily on cattle (dairy farming). Sheep were also kept for their wool. Hunting, fishing and sporadic agriculture was practiced near rivers.

Bell Beaker culture start Central Europe 2800bc.

Kromsdorf 2 - grave#5: R1b-M269+ S21/U106- & grave#8: R1b~M343+ M269? xS21/U106 [2,600–2,500 cal BC (2 SD)].

BB Central Euro 2500bc. Actual wheels from northern Europe by 2500 bc.

4.2K year Climate event lasting ~100. Yamna culture end 2300bc. CWC end 2350 Cal bc. Unetice culture start 2300bc.

U106 w/five derived SNPs buried in Lilla Beddinge in southern Sweden 2275 BC and 2032 BC.

Tin in Brittany, Devon and Cornwall, and in the Iberian Peninsula around 2000 BC. Chariot burials dated c. 2000 BCE.

Bell Beaker culture end 1800bc & Unetice culture end 1600bc. The transition from Early Bronze Age to Middle Bronze Age in Central and southeastern Europe 1600BC, Heuneburg fortified 16th century BC.

So how did U106 and P312 under P310 get into central Europe so quickly?


MJost

The thing to note is both Yamnaya (as far as Hungary) and CW (as far as Switzerland) moved pretty damn fast, possibly going from starting points in and adjacent to Ukraine to their westernmost destinations in just a century.

Cofgene
06-16-2015, 11:22 PM
FYI - BigY Coverage




Count Rows:
Count CombBED SNPs:




5
2


SNP Name
POS-REF-ALT
POS
in CombBED Y/N (1/0)?


FGC36477
7189712
7189712
1


FGC36478
8876940
8876940
1


FGC36479
9925446
9925446
0


FGC36480
13397473
13397473
0


FGC36481
13412040
13412040
0



Ascii version of chart
SNP Name POS-REF-ALT POS in CombBED Y/N (1/0)?
FGC36477 7189712 7189712 1
FGC36478 8876940 8876940 1
FGC36479 9925446 9925446 0
FGC36480 13397473 13397473 0
FGC36481 13412040 13412040 0

MJost


And that is why we have a Wish-A-SNP request out to YSEQ since we need to test some of these SNPs for all of the Big-Y results sitting right under U106. As soon as we hear from Astrid or Thomas we will start working on placing some YSEQ orders for the ones that are testable.

jdean
06-16-2015, 11:41 PM
And that is why we have a Wish-A-SNP request out to YSEQ since we need to test some of these SNPs for all of the Big-Y results sitting right under U106. As soon as we hear from Astrid or Thomas we will start working on placing some YSEQ orders for the ones that are testable.

But only if you're U106** !!

VinceT
06-17-2015, 04:05 AM
That's not yet confirmed. The clades listed in post #15 (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4710-R1b-U106-in-Swedish-Battle-Axe-Culture-(a-Corded-Ware-subgroup)&p=90153&viewfull=1#post90153)above which have not yet been added to the ISOGG tree. have only been observed in BigY or Chromo2 data, which are not exhaustive surveys of the Y-chromosome by design. So there is still a remote possibility that there may be an upstream common SNP between any of them and RISE98.

jdean
06-17-2015, 07:48 AM
That's not yet confirmed. The clades listed in post #15 (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4710-R1b-U106-in-Swedish-Battle-Axe-Culture-(a-Corded-Ware-subgroup)&p=90153&viewfull=1#post90153)above which have not yet been added to the ISOGG tree. have only been observed in BigY or Chromo2 data, which are not exhaustive surveys of the Y-chromosome by design. So there is still a remote possibility that there may be an upstream common SNP between any of them and RISE98.

I was going to include some caveats but it was already past my bed time so decided to keep it brief : )

Jean M
06-24-2015, 10:40 AM
I thought this was interesting: http://www.archasa.se/introduction-of-corded-war-pottery-in-sweden/

Ĺsa M Larsson did her PhD thesis



on the relationship between the Battle Axe culture and the Pitted Ware culture which both preceeded it and was contemporary with it in parts of Sweden. One aspect that really caught my attention was that of the pottery traditions which differed in many notable ways, not just superficially as in decorations, but more profoundly in craft choices and social organisation of that craft. Battle Axe pottery represents a technological break with previous traditions and seems to appear as a fully formed craft with little or no variation or learning curve. This is in contrast with the stone technology and settlement patterns which have considerable overlap with the Pitted Ware culture in Eastern Sweden and the Funnel Beaker culture in the South and West. .... Swedish Battle Axe pottery differs in some ways from ”classic” Corded Ware pottery found on the continent, including Denmark. It is remarkably similar to certain regional types of Finnish Corded Ware however.

Here is the dissertation http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:229392/FULLTEXT01.pdf

Michał
07-14-2015, 12:31 PM
Iain McDonald has recently published (in the Yahoo R1b-U106 group) his updated series of SNP-based TMRCA age estimates for clade R1b-U106 (and for all its all major subclades). His TMRCA estimate for clade R1b-U106 is now 2420 BC (2798 BC - 2073 BC), while he estimates that U106 itself was born about 2485 BC (2798 BC - 2073 BC). This is about half a millennium later than suggested by the most recent estimates by Full (4900 ybp, or 5400-4400 ybp), and more than a millennium later than previously suggested by my own “guesstimates” (5500 ybp, or 6000-5000 ybp).

Let’s see whether the RISE98 data are favoring any of the above estimates. As discussed in many of the above posts, RISE98 is dated to about 2154 BC (2275-2032 BC) and seems to have at least 5 reliable SNPs downstream of U106. They are considered “reliable” because each of them is represented by at least 4 independent reads (or 4 to 9 reads) with all those reads showing the presence of a derived allele, so the risk of a false positive result is practically close to null. Of course, the RISE98 results include many more candidates for “novel variants” under U106, but they are mostly represented by just 1 or 2 reads, so in all such cases it is extremely difficult to distinguish between a “genuine” mutation and a “false positive” one.

To estimate an approximate number of years per each “private” SNP discovered in RISE98, we need to know the total length of the Y-DNA sequence that shows at least 4x coverage in this particular sample. Unfortunately, I don’t know the exact length of that “4x coverage” sequence, but we can use the below data received from Vladimir Tagankin to estimate it.


RISE98 U106
line coverage 9.783.990 bp
n/c 49.589.576 bp
min coverage 1
max coverage 149
mean coverage 3.68
median coverage 3

Since the mean coverage is 3.68 while the median coverage is 3, we can be almost certain that the total sequence with at least 4x coverage is between 3.0 and 4.5 Mb (or let’s say about 4 Mb). In case anyone can provide the exact value, I will of course refine my calculations.

Let’s apply a relatively broad range of mutation rates circulating in the literature (and on this forum), including a relatively low mutation rate suggested by Mendez et al. (0.62 x 10^-9 per nucleotide per year), the “moderate” rate suggested by the Ust’ -Ishim data (0.76 x 10^-9 per nucleotide per year) and the relatively high mutation rate suggested by Adamov et al. (0.82 x 10^-9 per nucleotide per year), a value that is used in the YFull’s TMRCA estimates.



mutation rate
years/SNP*
years per 5 SNPs*
U106 TMRCA age


0.62 x 10^-9
403
2015
4169 BC (6.2 kya)


0.66 x 10^-9
379
1895
4049 BC (6.0 kya)


0.70 x 10^-9
357
1785
3939 BC (5.9 kya)


0.76 x 10^-9
329
1645
3799 BC (5.8 kya)


0.82 x 10^-9
305
1525
3679 BC (5.7 kya)


* - please note that this applies only to SNPs showing at least 4x coverage in sample RISE98


We need to keep in mind that this is based on just one ancient sample that is U106+ and we need at least one more “independent” ancient lineage under U106 to reach a sufficient level of confidence regarding the most likely age for the initial split under U106. Nevertheless, the above data suggest quite strongly that U106 diverged most likely between 6500 and 5000 years ago, probably within the 6000-5500 BP time frame. This perfectly fits my earliest attempts (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?2420-SNP-based-TMRCAs-for-R1b-U106-and-subclades) to calculate the TMRCA age for R1b-U106, but is also consistent with my more recent SNP-based “guesstimates” (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?828-STR-Wars-GDs-TMRCA-estimates-Variance-Mutation-Rates-amp-SNP-counting/page16&p=69786#post69786), while confirming my suspicions that YFull underestimates by about 10-20% (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4640-Population-genomics-of-Bronze-Age-Eurasia-%28Allentoft-et-al-2015%29&p=95518&viewfull=1#post95518). This also suggests that the recent U106 age estimate produced by Iain McDonald may turn out to be a strong underestimation (by about 20-25%), although I would wait for another ancient U106 sample (of relatively good quality) to get more confidence in this respect.

VinceT
07-14-2015, 06:10 PM
Since the mean coverage is 3.68 while the median coverage is 3, we can be almost certain that the total sequence with at least 4x coverage is between 3.0 and 4.5 Mb (or let’s say about 4 Mb). In case anyone can provide the exact value, I will of course refine my calculations.

This is from the raw BAM file as supplied, without realignment.

22,984,529 sites >= 0x coverage
9,782,905 sites >= 1x coverage
7,095,376 sites >= 2x coverage
5,154,297 sites >= 3x coverage
3,702,501 sites >= 4x coverage
2,622,023 sites >= 5x coverage


Summarized from the Depth-of-Coverage histogram report using GATK below, (mean works out to 3.680061495):


Source_of_reads sample_RISE98
from_0_to_1) 13201624
from_1_to_2) 2687529
from_2_to_3) 1941079
from_3_to_4) 1451796
from_4_to_5) 1080478
from_5_to_6) 797159
from_6_to_7) 574206
from_7_to_8) 402478
from_8_to_9) 272884
from_9_to_10) 180942
from_10_to_11) 116118
from_11_to_12) 72673
from_12_to_13) 45284
from_13_to_14) 28615
from_14_to_15) 18797
from_15_to_16) 12587
from_16_to_17) 9100
from_17_to_18) 6639
from_18_to_19) 5428
from_19_to_20) 4423
from_20_to_21) 4015
from_21_to_22) 3780
from_22_to_23) 3341
from_23_to_24) 3245
from_24_to_25) 3099
from_25_to_26) 2886
from_26_to_27) 2829
from_27_to_28) 2544
from_28_to_29) 2269
from_29_to_30) 2345
from_30_to_31) 1969
from_31_to_32) 2041
from_32_to_33) 1970
from_33_to_34) 1873
from_34_to_35) 1730
from_35_to_36) 1673
from_36_to_37) 1469
from_37_to_38) 1461
from_38_to_39) 1311
from_39_to_40) 1295
from_40_to_41) 1217
from_41_to_42) 1223
from_42_to_43) 1183
from_43_to_44) 1160
from_44_to_45) 1091
from_45_to_46) 1089
from_46_to_47) 1106
from_47_to_48) 975
from_48_to_49) 842
from_49_to_50) 883
from_50_to_51) 885
from_51_to_52) 809
from_52_to_53) 781
from_53_to_54) 759
from_54_to_55) 714
from_55_to_56) 635
from_56_to_57) 622
from_57_to_58) 591
from_58_to_59) 527
from_59_to_60) 569
from_60_to_61) 477
from_61_to_62) 438
from_62_to_63) 443
from_63_to_64) 420
from_64_to_65) 431
from_65_to_66) 399
from_66_to_67) 373
from_67_to_68) 341
from_68_to_69) 333
from_69_to_70) 293
from_70_to_71) 255
from_71_to_72) 260
from_72_to_73) 258
from_73_to_74) 258
from_74_to_75) 237
from_75_to_76) 210
from_76_to_77) 233
from_77_to_78) 169
from_78_to_79) 179
from_79_to_80) 171
from_80_to_81) 164
from_81_to_82) 146
from_82_to_83) 165
from_83_to_84) 146
from_84_to_85) 145
from_85_to_86) 145
from_86_to_87) 154
from_87_to_88) 148
from_88_to_89) 160
from_89_to_90) 111
from_90_to_91) 127
from_91_to_92) 114
from_92_to_93) 115
from_93_to_94) 108
from_94_to_95) 89
from_95_to_96) 81
from_96_to_97) 61
from_97_to_98) 66
from_98_to_99) 71
from_99_to_100) 62
from_100_to_101) 72
from_101_to_102) 58
from_102_to_103) 58
from_103_to_104) 50
from_104_to_105) 52
from_105_to_106) 45
from_106_to_107) 57
from_107_to_108) 62
from_108_to_109) 52
from_109_to_110) 39
from_110_to_111) 66
from_111_to_112) 49
from_112_to_113) 51
from_113_to_114) 49
from_114_to_115) 58
from_115_to_116) 33
from_116_to_117) 38
from_117_to_118) 46
from_118_to_119) 42
from_119_to_120) 30
from_120_to_121) 30
from_121_to_122) 25
from_122_to_123) 17
from_123_to_124) 19
from_124_to_125) 26
from_125_to_126) 31
from_126_to_127) 26
from_127_to_128) 11
from_128_to_129) 16
from_129_to_130) 10
from_130_to_131) 10
from_131_to_132) 6
from_132_to_133) 8
from_133_to_134) 3
from_134_to_135) 1
from_135_to_136) 3
from_136_to_137) 1
from_137_to_138) 5
from_138_to_139) 2
from_139_to_140) 5
from_140_to_141) 4
from_141_to_142) 3
from_142_to_143) 4
from_143_to_144) 4
from_144_to_145) 5
from_145_to_146) 9
from_146_to_147) 15
from_147_to_148) 8
from_148_to_149) 12
from_149_to_150) 2
from_150_to_151) 0
from_151_to_152) 0
from_152_to_153) 0
from_153_to_154) 0
from_154_to_155) 0
from_155_to_156) 0
from_156_to_157) 0
from_157_to_158) 0
from_158_to_159) 0
from_159_to_160) 0
from_160_to_161) 0
from_161_to_162) 0
from_162_to_163) 0
from_163_to_164) 0
from_164_to_165) 0
from_165_to_166) 0
from_166_to_167) 0
from_167_to_168) 0
from_168_to_169) 0
from_169_to_170) 0
from_170_to_171) 0
from_171_to_172) 0
from_172_to_173) 0
from_173_to_174) 0
from_174_to_175) 0
from_175_to_176) 0
from_176_to_177) 0
from_177_to_178) 0
from_178_to_179) 0
from_179_to_180) 0
from_180_to_181) 0
from_181_to_182) 0
from_182_to_183) 0
from_183_to_184) 0
from_184_to_185) 0
from_185_to_186) 0
from_186_to_187) 0
from_187_to_188) 0
from_188_to_189) 0
from_189_to_190) 0
from_190_to_191) 0
from_191_to_192) 0
from_192_to_193) 0
from_193_to_194) 0
from_194_to_195) 0
from_195_to_196) 0
from_196_to_197) 0
from_197_to_198) 0
from_198_to_199) 0
from_199_to_200) 0

alan
07-14-2015, 07:53 PM
Iain McDonald has recently published (in the Yahoo R1b-U106 group) his updated series of SNP-based TMRCA age estimates for clade R1b-U106 (and for all its all major subclades). His TMRCA estimate for clade R1b-U106 is now 2420 BC (2798 BC - 2073 BC), while he estimates that U106 itself was born about 2485 BC (2798 BC - 2073 BC). This is about half a millennium later than suggested by the most recent estimates by Full (4900 ybp, or 5400-4400 ybp), and more than a millennium later than previously suggested by my own “guesstimates” (5500 ybp, or 6000-5000 ybp).

Let’s see whether the RISE98 data are favoring any of the above estimates. As discussed in many of the above posts, RISE98 is dated to about 2154 BC (2275-2032 BC) and seems to have at least 5 reliable SNPs downstream of U106. They are considered “reliable” because each of them is represented by at least 4 independent reads (or 4 to 9 reads) with all those reads showing the presence of a derived allele, so the risk of a false positive result is practically close to null. Of course, the RISE98 results include many more candidates for “novel variants” under U106, but they are mostly represented by just 1 or 2 reads, so in all such cases it is extremely difficult to distinguish between a “genuine” mutation and a “false positive” one.

To estimate an approximate number of years per each “private” SNP discovered in RISE98, we need to know the total length of the Y-DNA sequence that shows at least 4x coverage in this particular sample. Unfortunately, I don’t know the exact length of that “4x coverage” sequence, but we can use the below data received from Vladimir Tagankin to estimate it.



Since the mean coverage is 3.68 while the median coverage is 3, we can be almost certain that the total sequence with at least 4x coverage is between 3.0 and 4.5 Mb (or let’s say about 4 Mb). In case anyone can provide the exact value, I will of course refine my calculations.

Let’s apply a relatively broad range of mutation rates circulating in the literature (and on this forum), including a relatively low mutation rate suggested by Mendez et al. (0.62 x 10^-9 per nucleotide per year), the “moderate” rate suggested by the Ust’ -Ishim data (0.76 x 10^-9 per nucleotide per year) and the relatively high mutation rate suggested by Adamov et al. (0.82 x 10^-9 per nucleotide per year), a value that is used in the YFull’s TMRCA estimates.



mutation rate
years/SNP*
years per 5 SNPs*
U106 TMRCA age


0.62 x 10^-9
403
2015
4169 BC (6.2 kya)


0.66 x 10^-9
379
1895
4049 BC (6.0 kya)


0.70 x 10^-9
357
1785
3939 BC (5.9 kya)


0.76 x 10^-9
329
1645
3799 BC (5.8 kya)


0.82 x 10^-9
305
1525
3679 BC (5.7 kya)


* - please note that this applies only to SNPs showing at least 4x coverage in sample RISE98


We need to keep in mind that this is based on just one ancient sample that is U106+ and we need at least one more “independent” ancient lineage under U106 to reach a sufficient level of confidence regarding the most likely age for the initial split under U106. Nevertheless, the above data suggest quite strongly that U106 diverged most likely between 6500 and 5000 years ago, probably within the 6000-5500 BP time frame. This perfectly fits my earliest attempts (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?2420-SNP-based-TMRCAs-for-R1b-U106-and-subclades) to calculate the TMRCA age for R1b-U106, but is also consistent with my more recent SNP-based “guesstimates” (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?828-STR-Wars-GDs-TMRCA-estimates-Variance-Mutation-Rates-amp-SNP-counting/page16&p=69786#post69786), while confirming my suspicions that YFull underestimates by about 10-20% (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4640-Population-genomics-of-Bronze-Age-Eurasia-%28Allentoft-et-al-2015%29&p=95518&viewfull=1#post95518). This also suggests that the recent U106 age estimate produced by Iain McDonald may turn out to be a strong underestimation (by about 20-25%), although I would wait for another ancient U106 sample (of relatively good quality) to get more confidence in this respect.

I think one potential way of seeing which method is closest to the truth is how the age of DF13 comes out. It seems to me very unlikely DF13 can much post-date 2500BC if the beaker model is to be maintained for the spread through the isles.

Michał
07-14-2015, 08:43 PM
3,702,501 sites >= 4x coverage

Thanks! It turned out the real number (3.7 Mb) was very close to what I expected (4.0 Mb, or between 3.0 and 4.5 Mb).
Here are the refined calculations:



mutation rate
years/SNP*
years per 5 SNPs*
U106 TMRCA age


0.62 x 10^-9
436
2180
4334 BC (6.3 kya)


0.66 x 10^-9
410
2050
4204 BC (6.2 kya)


0.70 x 10^-9
386
1930
4084 BC (6.1 kya)


0.76 x 10^-9
356
1780
3934 BC (5.9 kya)


0.82 x 10^-9
330
1650
3804 BC (5.8 kya)


* - please note that this applies only to SNPs showing at least 4x coverage in sample RISE98

Th major conclusion remains unchanged, which means that U106 diverged most likely between 6500 and 5000 years ago, probably within the 6000-5500 BP time frame.

alan
07-15-2015, 09:27 AM
When you think about it, the beaker lifestyle must have been incredibly dangerous. Passing in small groups into new territories, handling all that precious metal people wanted, jealousy of your status, long distance travel, mining, messing about with high temperatures/arsenic, crossing water in boats. I would suspect that although some hit the big time and bred like bunnies, there was probably a very high mortality rate among the pioneer generations and line extinction must have been very common.

Wonder_Wall
07-29-2015, 06:56 AM
That is an astute observation Alan. It also can't have been much fun to mine for ore in those days either.

alan
07-29-2015, 02:56 PM
That is an astute observation Alan. It also can't have been much fun to mine for ore in those days either.

I suspect mining was probably relatively safe as by then deals must have been struck with the locals for mutual benefit. I think prospecting, manufacture, trading and distributing the actual copper ingots and finished products was probably more dangerous than mining and even if boats were used that would be very dangerous too. Even in modern times the death rate among traditional fishing communities in recent times Europe was simply incredible. The Atlantic and North Seas and even the Irish Sea are very rough waters that never quit and you are constantly bobbing like crazy in the water. Also its very unlikely the sail reached the Atlantic till 1000BC so it would be grueling to cross open water in the beaker period and I imagine they avoided that as much as possible and went for the shortest possible open water crossings when they could do that. ASAIK plank boats only start with the closing of the beaker era and opening of the EBA so it was log boats or skin boats by the look of it. I wouldnt fancy being in a log boat on the Atlantic even if it had outriggers so surely must have been skin boats. Negative evidence for anything else seaworthy kind of supports that IMO. Got to be honest I would rather be in a curragh type wicker frame and skin boat than even the EBA sewn plank boats. Curraghs are excellent boats in rough seas. As an aside, it looks like the Celts got the sail probably in the Late Bronze Age long before the Germanics did. IMO it most likely became known c. 1000-800BC from Iberia when the Phoenicians brought the idea and probably spread up the Atlantic coast with the trade we can see c. 1000-800BC.

glentane
07-29-2015, 11:39 PM
Even in modern times the death rate among traditional fishing communities in recent times Europe was simply incredible. The Atlantic and North Seas and even the Irish Sea are very rough waters that never quit and you are constantly bobbing like crazy in the water.
Which is why I have a feeling in me water about the "anomalous" LBA/MIA rubbish-pit burials at Cliff's End Farm (http://www.wessexarch.co.uk/projects/kent/ramsgate/cliffs_end). It's right on a headland-ette within Pegwell Bay, the mouth of the former channel separating Thanet (Isle of) from Kent, the nearest landfall for beaching a boat (without having to climb a cliff, hence the name) to the immense and ill-famed Goodwin Sands and their perennial harvest of wretches and treasure.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/staticarchive/4f33e5686188671e8acdc109a356a19e14297b94.jpg.
Any coasting vessel going north-east on the Brit side of the Channel (having picked up their tin in the Solent or further west, for leverage in the Scandinavian copper/scrap bronze markets, along with stuff they already had from home which maintained value even after iron appeared: olive oil/wine/stinky cheese and proper mountain sausages/jamón or even dried exotic herbs cough cough is always a good bet with Brits and northern Europeans), hoping to round the headland into the North Sea might mistake the gap for the proper roads, and be broken on the tidal sandflats a mile away across a deep riptide sound from shore. Death, even at the height of summer, unless picked up between tides. Survivors and their cargo stood there (temporarily) desperately waving, shouting and lighting fires in the wreckage to dry out would fall into the hands of the islanders, to spend their lives in bondage/concubinage to the local landlord. The purported origins of those people buried in such non-ordinary, curiously-ritualised ways there are highly suggestive. Not mere peasant/serf grade who are as usual archaeologically invisible. Not even "kin", maybe "below", but definitely not "above", ostensibly "other" and seemingly connected to by intra-cemetery indications but distinct from the fairly routine cremation/barrow cemetery slightly uphill to the northeast (i.e. also on the "island", not the Kentish mainland).

They are from the furthest distant ends of the Atlantic bronze trade, Western Mediterranean and Scandinavia, but possibly not from the middle where they ended up. Women, as well as bronze were in transit, if the recent findings about Egtved Girl (by a different ancient trade route) being from down the Rhine are in any way sound.

rokus01
10-08-2015, 04:17 PM
Here are my position data for the 5 "high-reliability" private SNPs

7189712 20G (G>T = FGC36477+)
8876940 46A (A>G = FGC36478+)
9925446 46G 2DEL (G>A = FGC36479+)
13397473 1A 15C (C>A = FGC36480+ (rs111331790))
13412040 10T 22C (C>T = FGC36481+ (rs76331798))

Clinton P

Any progress on this issue on RISE98's U106?
Did he just belong to a L217+ subclade, or do these SNP's apply to all of L217, or maybe even all of U106-FGC3861?

VinceT
10-08-2015, 06:24 PM
Any progress on this issue on RISE98's U106?
Did he just belong to a L217+ subclade, or do these SNP's apply to all of L217, or maybe even all of U106-FGC3861?

As far as we can tell, these five SNPs are under R-U106* [R-U106 (xA2150, FGC396, FGC3861, S12025, S18632, Z18, Z381)]. We still need to have NGS data comparable to Y-Elite from men belonging to R-A2150 and R-S18632 to be sure.

There is an eighth candidate subclade potentially directly below R-U106* that we're calling R-S11493, but we don't have any NGS data from it, nor anyone in the R1b-U106 Project at FTDNA who has tested positive; it has only been observed in Chromo2 data. Regardless, RISE98 is ancestral for six of the seven S-series SNPs that are clustered with R-S11493; the seventh is a no-call.

Consequently, RISE98 appears to represent an extinct branch of R-U106*, but the project administrators have requested that the upcoming R1b-U106 SNP Packs at FTDNA include at least some of those SNPs. YSEQ.net already offers FGC36477, FGC36478, FGC36479.

L217.1 is under R-FGC3861>FGC7916>S1855, while L217.2 is under R-Z30>CTS10893>FGC17429.

rokus01
10-08-2015, 08:37 PM
Then how does the BigY result of Clinton P (L217.1 under R-FGC3861), reported as a full match, fit in?

This in combination with the apparent observation that RISE98 does NOT test negative for R-FGC3861 :
8412012 C>T C- Z8052/FGC7915
15779994 C>T ? Z8056/FGC3861
15850306 G>C G- Z8057/FGC3854
18413945 C>T ? FGC3865/Y2407
18645737 C>T ? Z8058/FGC7914

VinceT
10-08-2015, 10:50 PM
Then how does the BigY result of Clinton P (L217.1 under R-FGC3861), reported as a full match, fit in?

This in combination with the apparent observation that RISE98 does NOT test negative for R-FGC3861 :
8412012 C>T C- Z8052/FGC7915
15779994 C>T ? Z8056/FGC3861
15850306 G>C G- Z8057/FGC3854
18413945 C>T ? FGC3865/Y2407
18645737 C>T ? Z8058/FGC7914


Clinton is ancestral for all. Also, R-L217.1 is derived under Z8052/FGC7915 and Z8057/FGC3854.

rokus01
10-09-2015, 04:36 AM
Clinton is ancestral for all. Also, R-L217.1 is derived under Z8052/FGC7915 and Z8057/FGC3854.

I misread Clinton P's report.
Sure, any R-L217.1 being a full match would imply RISE98 to be an already fully differentiated modern subclade, derived under Z8052/FGC7915 and Z8057/FGC3854.
It could still be possible that RISE98 is a derived subclade if this person was undefined for all defining SNP's of any of the 7 or 8 branches directly below U106. It depends on the reliability and interpretation of the calls extracted from RISE98. For instance, what does call C- (I read C-minus) mean for 8412012 C>T (Z8052/FGC7915) ?

So I gather Clinton P is

VinceT
10-09-2015, 09:04 PM
I misread Clinton P's report.
Sure, any R-L217.1 being a full match would imply RISE98 to be an already fully differentiated modern subclade, derived under Z8052/FGC7915 and Z8057/FGC3854.
It could still be possible that RISE98 is a derived subclade if this person was undefined for all defining SNP's of any of the 7 or 8 branches directly below U106. It depends on the reliability and interpretation of the calls extracted from RISE98. For instance, what does call C- (I read C-minus) mean for 8412012 C>T (Z8052/FGC7915) ?


All members of R-FGC3861 have the derived "T" for ChrY:8412012 (=Z8052/FGC7915). RISE98 has the ancestral "C".

Clinton is tracking the R-FGC3861 SNPs from FGC and Big Y data, as well as from Chromo2, here:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1EjpMeaKld3TPDgdoAsmWS3Jkt4fulwtACxK5ZjN0fok/edit?pli=1#gid=2

Dibran
06-19-2017, 02:05 AM
Question

I know Gedmatch is just a statistical analysis and is not to be taken as anything seriously accurate. However, assuming there is some level of accuracy in comparative genetics, how is it possible for a Southern European/Albanian to have the shortest statistical distances with Battle_Axe_Sweden_RISE94?

Finn
08-17-2017, 07:56 PM
Lilla Bedinge in southern Scania comprises the largest known cemetery associated with the Swedish Battle Axe Culture. The site, extending over an area of about 240×30 m, is located only about 1 km from the present day coast line. The majority of the at least 14 identified and excavated flat earth inhumations graves are located on a NE–SW oriented moraine embankment, whereas four of the graves are found on the flatter grounds to the SE. The site also includes a number of Late Bronze Age cremation graves, and two other find spots for BAC inhumation graves are known in the nearby region....

Grave 49 was excavated by Hansen 1934. It constitutes a N–S oriented subsurface oval stone construction with pointed edges, measuring about 4.5×2 m, where flat stone slabs form a roof over a chamber with an original height estimated to about 0.6–0.7 m. Fragments of wood indicate the presence of planks in the chamber. On the stone paved floor of the chamber three adult individuals had been placed in a line in sitting crouched positions facing southwest. Between the northern and middle skeleton fragmented remains of three children (initially only two were identified), representing two infants and a juvenile, were recovered. Further, some very brittle diaphyses of a fourth adult have been identified. The only recovered find is a bone needle deposited next to the northern skeleton (Hansen 1934; Malmer 1962:162p ; During unpublished notes). According to Malmer (2002:141) the grave can be dated to Period 4, and an unpublished radiocarbon date from the northern skeleton falls within the interval 2580–1980 cal. BC (2σ, 3850±105 BP, Ua-2758, During unpublished notes).

http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:439410/FULLTEXT01.pdf


He could be L11 or L51. Around Mercia is a hotspot for L11. Maybe even U106. Isn't its highest diversity just south of where the archer is supposedly from? U106 would make a good candidate for the explosion out of the Netherlands, with Barbed wire Beaker as well.


Chad I guess you could be right!! Barbed Wire could be the key culture in the spread of R1b U106.

What's the connection between the statement of jean and of chad? This is as follows.

What's the case when we look at the information about Rise 98 than it's southwest Sweden and it's dated 2580–1980 cal. BC. At that time the Barbed Wire Culture was dominant in Sweden. This is mostly seen at the latest phase of the Bell Beaker culture or piece de resistance. Wiki: 'In east central Sweden and western Sweden, barbed wire decoration characterised the period 2460–1990 BC, linked to another Beaker derivation of northwestern Europe.'

When we take a look at archeological findings than this correspondences with the work of Vandkilde (2005):

"The argument can be carried further into a discussion about the presentation of cultural and social identity through materi- al means. Firstly, the boundary between ordinary Late Neolithic Culture and Beaker-enriched Late Neolithic Culture in Jutland coincidences roughly with an older cultural boundary between Single Grave Culture and Funnel-necked Beaker Culture (Glob 1944, fig. 113) in addition to a similar boundary centuries later, c. 1600 BC, between the Valsřmagle and the Sögel-Wohlde metalwork styles (Vandkilde 1996, fig. 273, B; 1999 b). All three cases relate to con- texts of general social change. Secondly, it is especially the frequent occurrence of Beaker pottery in settlements that makes the early Late Neolithic boundary distinct (see fig. 9). This tallies with an interpretation of Beaker pottery as first and foremost signalling a large-scaled form of social identity, which we may call cultural identity, or perhaps ethnic identity."

....

"Late Neolithic pottery is lacking in ornamentation, variability and sophistication (e.g. Schiellerup 1991, 48 ff. with references), notabky excepting northern Jutland. The plain pottery known from burials and settlement sites does not exhibit creative efforts and must have held connotations entirely different from, for instance, flint daggers and metal objects. The ware often has a rough texture, the pot wall is often thick, pot shapes are simple, and decoration, if any, consists of incised or impressed 'barbed wire' patterns, horizontal grooves or ridges in addition to an applied thick horizon- tal band below the rim. The subject is difficult due to the fact that Late Neolithic pottery is insufficiently studied, and so far chronological groupings are not distinguishable.
In east central Sweden and western Sweden, barbed wire decoration characterises the period 2460–1990 BC, whereas pots with a thickly applied clay band – so-called vulst in Danish – date to the period 1950–1780 BC (Holm et al. 1997, 220). Whether the ceramic sequence in central and eastern Denmark holds similar traits remains to be examined."

Last but not least I want to mention the new developed feature K36 Ancient. Members LukaszM and Tomenable are doing a great job here. My North Dutch auDNA seems to be connected with first of all: Barbed Wire Sweden. My closest sample is namely RISE98!
2nd closest = Northumbrian Anglo-Saxon, 3rd closest = RISE174 from Iron Age Sweden:

[1] "1. CLOSEST SINGLE ITEM DISTANCES"
CWC_Sweden_RISE98 EMA_Northumbria_NO3423
10.76911 11.74862
IA_Sweden_RISE174 CWC_Sweden_RISE94
12.13263 12.13601
BA_Unetice_Czechia_RISE577 IA_Celto-German_6DRIF3
12.80284 13.38595
IA_Celto-German_3DRIF16 BB_Germany_RISE563
14.19219 14.33519

Ok this kind of admixtures are under development, but this looks no coincidence! My ancestry is deep rooted in the area where Barbed Wire Beaker left their genetic footprint and or it's craddle.
https://nl.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikkeldraadbekercultuur#/media/Bestand%3ABarbedWireBeaker.png

Does the fishing net gets thighter!? I go with Chad!!!

See: http://www.jungsteinsite.uni-kiel.de...dkilde_low.pdf

Some add this groep could be most responsible for the U106 spread:
The Northern British/North Rhine Beaker Group (N/NR)
The particular interest of the Northern/North Rhine group and its close cousin the Barbed Wire beaker group, is that both groups only just scrape within the de nition of beakers of the Bell beaker tradition. Both tlle Northern/North Rhine and the Barbed-Wire beaker groups comprise traditions of mixed Late Corded Ware and peripheral Bell beaker origin. This mixture of traditions can be recognised in the squat, protruding foot, ovoid body beakers with recurved rims, incised or grooved decoration with a poor repertoir of basic beaker motifs and a neolithic poverty of grave associations. To these factors can be added the occasional use of cremation burial rite in a small grave with the beaker beside the cremation heap, and a number of vessels without decoration below the belly.
The Northern/North Rhine beaker group then is represented by the small squat or globular vessels with protruding feet. The decoration frequently consists of heavy grooving below the rim with crude or carelessly incised zones on the body, including metopic motifs. The typical motif is the multiple outlined triangle of the diagnostic form common throughout the Corded Ware tradition and entirely alien in the Bell beakermotifassemblage(Struve, 1955,p.136).Theoriginofthegroupseemstolie in the similar assemblages found immediately North of the old Rhine Delta and along the hinterland of the Frisian coasts. The Dutch examples of this group have been partially de ned by Modder an (1955) but the type is centered across the border in coastal Germany4. In this area it would appear that late and devolved Corded Ware groups integrated small bands of beaker settlers producing a pottery assemblage of
hybrid character.
These folk, with their strong non-beaker background, apparently crossed the North Sea in a series of small bands somewhere around 1700 B.C. or slightly later. The settlers clustered in three foci based on the North Sea CQast: - around the Moray Firth, in the Border Counties and on the Yorkshire Wolds. The domestic assemblage included both undecorated and non-plastic rusticated ware. The main importance of these settlers from across the North Sea lies in the subsequent inte* gration of certain of their pottery features with the later Dutch beakers of the Veluwe type, giving rise to regional insular variations such as the beake s with short, angular. all-over-grooved necks.
http://rjh.ub.rug.nl/Palaeohistoria/article/download/24936/22384

Finn
08-18-2017, 06:27 PM
In an excellent essay from Carlos Quiles Indo-European demic diffusion model (2017) you can find a relevant passage about Barbed Wire and the relationship with U106 and Rise98:

"The best candidate for an expansion of the Pre-Germanic dialect of North-West Indo- European into Scandinavia is the Barbed Wire Beaker culture of the Low Countries and Northern Lowland (Kristiansen 2009), which would later show a period of change (Figure 16) starting ca. 1850 BC until its complete cultural change evident after ca. 1500 BC (Fokkens and Harding 2013), into the Elp culture (ca. 1800-800 BC). Samples of haplogroup R1b1a1a2a1a1-U106 are found quite late, in the Nordic Late Neolithic at Lilla Beddinge ca. 2150 BC (Allentoft et al. 2015), and in Oostwoud ca. 1881-1646 BC (Olalde et al. 2017), suggesting a connection of lineages between Jutland and the Low Countries. Modern population analysis supports this connection, showing that R1b1a1a2a1a1-U106 distribution peaks today precisely around the Netherlands."

See:
https://indo-european.info/indo-european-demic-diffusion-model-2.pdf

Curleyprow
12-04-2017, 04:30 PM
What does this suggest to you? Does it suggest that haplogroup R1b1a1a2a11-U106 as found in the UK today is:
1. Of Frisian origin
2. Of Saxon origin
3. Of Danish origin or
4. Of Swedish origin. It seems to me it could just as much be 'imported' to the UK in the Viking great heathen army from Sweden ( who were indisputably part of this army and had in any case had Viking incursions to England before that time as well, as from any of these other three groups ( especially, as in my case, I have DNA ancestors in Sweden dating back to the 16 century). Given the significantly different geographical boundaries in ancient Europe, although this haplogroup is most prevalent in the Netherlands today it could easily have been imported to the UK with the Saxons or Danes or Swedes, in my view.

Wing Genealogist
12-05-2017, 01:10 AM
U106 is old enough and large enough that it undoubtedly entered Great Britain at multiple times via multiple routes. Given the fact U106 is a major lineage within the various Germanic tribes, it is likely a significant number of them came over during the "Anglo-Saxon" invasion period. However, they were likely also present in the Viking incursions (including the Norman Invasion).

Ancient DNA results have found a couple of U106+ Roman "gladiators" in Britain, but there was some discussion regarding the possibility they may not have been native to the Island. In any case, there is every reason to believe some U106+ individuals may have came over during the Roman occupation, or even prior to the occupation.

Curleyprow
12-05-2017, 01:09 PM
Yes, I agree. I think the Roman gladiators found in the UK are less likely to be of British stock and more likely to have been captured Germani from the Roman wars in Gaul and Germany who were transported over to Britain to entertain the Roman establishment there. Although, of course, the Celts themselves are of Germanic origin. In any event, thank you for your informative post.

Bollox79
12-05-2017, 04:57 PM
Yes, I agree. I think the Roman gladiators found in the UK are less likely to be of British stock and more likely to have been captured Germani from the Roman wars in Gaul and Germany who were transported over to Britain to entertain the Roman establishment there. Although, of course, the Celts themselves are of Germanic origin. In any event, thank you for your informative post.

Not so much about U106, but more about those Roman gladiators :-)...

I am quite familiar with the Roman gladiators from Driffield Terrace (having basically read most/all of the descriptions of their skeletons/stress makers in addition to DNA paper) and am related to two of them 3drif-16 (who is DF96 and L1 under Z156 and a couple other Z SNPs) and 6drif-3 who you will see in my signature ;-).

I've watched Gladiators: Back from the Dead tons of times (in which I know 6drif-3 was examined as the Heavyweight or Murmillo gladiator/skeleton based on the sharp and blunt trauma to his right ulna/forearm - they didn't even mention the partial decapitation specifically, but mentioned it about the group as a whole). I've also read all the stress markers and non-metric traits and compared them to other skeletal groups with martial histories such as the Towton soldiers, a few I'm forgetting, and most recently the Longobards from Szolad cemetery 6th century in Hungary (then Pannonia). The skeletons of Northern Europeans ancestry and buried with weapons had plenty of trauma and stress markers similar to Driffield Terrace guys, but were buried with weapons etc. Also healed and unhealed fractures found in both cemeteries...

Finally was able to watch (had to pay 3 dollars for the episode, but that is fine with me!!) the Headless Gladiators of York episode of Smithsonian Secrets series (known as Ancient Mysteries in UK I believe) and they went further into the large carnivore wounds (now very likely a tiger chewing on that guy) and the metal rings around the legs of one of the biggest skeletons in the cemetery. Also of note is that 6drif-3 was, stature wise, the larger skeleton at about 6'0" give a take a few inches ;-). Anyway, they went into how heavily built these guys were and in the prime of their life and were well feed for that to happen (backed up by isotopic analysis) and the fact that what ever they were, they were a selected group of fellows who had a tough childhood like the contemporary populations (non-specific stress markers etc), but were selected and feed well and beefed up and trained whether they were fighting before they were gladiators, or captured or sold at a young age into the arean etc. Also their position of burial right along the main Roman road and on the Mount says something about them, as that was a prime place to be buried ;-).

If you haven't seen either Gladiators: Back from the Dead Channel 4 episode or the Ancient Mysteries/Secrets one... you should give them a watch ;-)!

Cheers!

P.S. study on Longobard cemetery of Szolad here: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0110793
Study of Driffield Terrace boy's skeletons here: http://www.yorkarchaeology.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Driffield-Terrace-York-Osteological-Report.pdf
and the "year 2" page of the Gladiators which I just found out stuff has been added ;-) to: http://www.yorkarchaeology.co.uk/resources/finding-the-future/resilience-year-2-3/gladiators-year-2/

Finn
12-05-2017, 07:01 PM
What does this suggest to you? Does it suggest that haplogroup R1b1a1a2a11-U106 as found in the UK today is:
1. Of Frisian origin
2. Of Saxon origin
3. Of Danish origin or
4. Of Swedish origin. It seems to me it could just as much be 'imported' to the UK in the Viking great heathen army from Sweden ( who were indisputably part of this army and had in any case had Viking incursions to England before that time as well, as from any of these other three groups ( especially, as in my case, I have DNA ancestors in Sweden dating back to the 16 century). Given the significantly different geographical boundaries in ancient Europe, although this haplogroup is most prevalent in the Netherlands today it could easily have been imported to the UK with the Saxons or Danes or Swedes, in my view.

1. Of Frisian origin and
2. Of Saxon origin and
3. Of Danish origin and
4. Of Swedish origin.

It was already there in LN/EBA Scania and North Dutch 2000-1800 BC.
This could already mean spread in the Bronze Age.
The Germanic spread in the Iron Age, early middle ages is most probably also the cause of a spread of R1b U106. And later on in the Viking age....

So that's why IMO it's not one of the origins but all.....

Curleyprow
12-06-2017, 09:36 AM
Of Course you are right, my concern, however, perhaps a bit selfishly, is to find out as best I can what my U106 origins are. It is of course possible that I consist a bit of all these, or part of some of them, but I am considering the hitherto unverifiable hypothesis that S1855 ( my terminal haplogroup) entered the UK through Saxon and Scandinavian incursions (in my case possibly Swedish). I find it frustrating, although I am perfectly aware of the origin of this difficulty which is the lack of empirical evidence available to date, to know with some degree of certainty such vague uncertainties! Thank you for you post, I am much obliged to you for it.

Jenny
12-06-2017, 01:12 PM
Sorry double post

Jenny
12-06-2017, 01:25 PM
Anecdotal but I first traced the Trask name to Somerset England, then to a village near York called Thirsk, from there to a village in Sweden called of course Trask with umlauts.
Hey! Could be true

Curleyprow
12-06-2017, 05:34 PM
Not anecdotal at all. Thirsk in Yorkshire's North Riding is definitely of Viking origin, however these wer most likely to Danes rather than Swedes, I think. Thank you for your post Jenny.

rms2
02-18-2018, 12:36 AM
Here is something I did not know when I started this thread, but evidently RISE98 was a carrier of the red hair variant rs1805008 T, otherwise known as Arg160Trp or R160W.

I don't know whether he carried just one risk allele (T) or two. He would need to have two to be a redhead or strawberry blond for sure, but it's possible to be a redhead with just one risk allele or to at least have red facial hair.

My source for this is Genetiker's Phenotype SNPs from prehistoric Eurasia (https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2015/06/21/phenotype-snps-from-prehistoric-eurasia/).

Here is a Google sheet I created that lists ancient carriers of Arg160Trp.

Ancient Carriers of the Red Hair Variant Arg160Trp (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/15p7MiR1UIsy8ySAbTKX-ju07Zhx3cPIroEmJmedeFvw/edit?usp=sharing)

Here is a modern distribution map of Arg160Trp from 23andMe (I added the notes on the right):

21559

JohnHowellsTyrfro
02-18-2018, 05:12 PM
Anecdotal but I first traced the Trask name to Somerset England, then to a village near York called Thirsk, from there to a village in Sweden called of course Trask with umlauts.
Hey! Could be true

I mentioned recently a Book called "Danes in Wessex - the Scandinavian impact on Southern England" which looks at evidence in the Domesday Book of Danish (Scandinavian?) tenants in Southern England amongst other evidence. I was specifically looking at a chap named Thorkil in Herefordshire.

JohnHowellsTyrfro
02-18-2018, 05:18 PM
Of Course you are right, my concern, however, perhaps a bit selfishly, is to find out as best I can what my U106 origins are. It is of course possible that I consist a bit of all these, or part of some of them, but I am considering the hitherto unverifiable hypothesis that S1855 ( my terminal haplogroup) entered the UK through Saxon and Scandinavian incursions (in my case possibly Swedish). I find it frustrating, although I am perfectly aware of the origin of this difficulty which is the lack of empirical evidence available to date, to know with some degree of certainty such vague uncertainties! Thank you for you post, I am much obliged to you for it.

Have you joined the U106 project group? Tested with FTDNA? They have done a lot of analysis and that may be your best hope. Dr. Iain McDonald is doing a lot of detailed work on U106 distribution.


https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/R1b1c_U106-S21/info

rms2
02-19-2018, 01:55 AM
Evidently RISE98 was also derived for both of the most common European lactase persistence variants, rs4988235 A and rs182549 T. I don't know whether he was heterozygous or homozygous, but evidently he could digest milk and other dairy products without difficulty.

rms2
02-20-2018, 12:18 PM
Evidently interest in the oldest known R1b-U106 thus far is very low.

I kind of thought the autosomal info I posted in my last two posts was kind of interesting and might spark some discussion, but apparently not.

Shouldn't have bothered, I guess.

:noidea:

uintah106
02-20-2018, 12:47 PM
Evidently RISE98 was also derived for both of the most common European lactase persistence variants, rs4988235 A and rs182549 T. I don't know whether he was heterozygous or homozygous, but evidently he could digest milk and other dairy products without difficulty.

Sounds a lot like a modern Swede or Dane. Was his height ever estimated?

rms2
02-20-2018, 12:51 PM
Sounds a lot like a modern Swede or Dane. Was his height ever estimated?

As a matter of fact, I recall reading that he was very much like modern Swedes autosomally. I haven't seen anything on his height.

uintah106
02-21-2018, 03:15 AM
Evidently interest in the oldest known R1b-U106 thus far is very low.

I kind of thought the autosomal info I posted in my last two posts was kind of interesting and might spark some discussion, but apparently not.

Shouldn't have bothered, I guess.

:noidea:
Isn't he the oldest sample of R1b m269+ in scandinavia?

rms2
02-21-2018, 01:20 PM
Isn't he the oldest sample of R1b m269+ in scandinavia?

I believe so, yes.

Interesting that he was a carrier of the red hair variant Arg160Tro, given the rest of the ancient carriers of it, the oldest of which was a Yamnaya male.

Bollox79
02-25-2018, 07:05 AM
I believe so, yes.

Interesting that he was a carrier of the red hair variant Arg160Tro, given the rest of the ancient carriers of it, the oldest of which was a Yamnaya male.

This is interesting rms2... my next question would be how widespread do you think that red hair gene was at that time... and if not very widespread it would provide a link to Yamnaya through Corded Ware... I personally am favoring a more Northern evolution through Hungary (since we have that U106 Z304 guy near Prague now), but also through the Baltic because we have a slightly earlier RISE98 (earliest U106 found correct?) and the guy in West Frisia who is younger than both RISE98 and Prague Z304 guy... I wonder how much of U106 got to where it is and the Isles through the Baltic and maritime movement because Prague Z304 man is the first ancient U106 not found very close to water/shore as even the U106 Gladiators were technically near the shore... but on an Island so not as significant ;-).

Also the argument seems to be pinning down the particulars as I am pretty convinced that a majority of R1b and R1a got caught up in the Yamnaya expansion westward... but through what contact with what older cultures - that's the particulars. I am happy so far to see oldest U106 - Battle Axe or Corded Ware sub culture... then through whatever expansion and other cultures involved... now is found in Unetice culture in Hungary. I see Corded Ware being listed first... then Beaker... then Beaker is listed as "followed by" Nordic Bronze Age, Unetice, Elp, and some others like Atlantic BA. So we have U106 in Battle Axe/Corded Ware, then R1b U106 in Unetice culture, then R1b U106 in Tumulus (which also followed the Unetice) and/or Elp in West Frisia and the dates line up roughly to the cultures... like I said I think we are on the right track... it's the particulars that are going to take a long time and LOTS of ancient samples to iron out...

Bollox79
02-25-2018, 07:15 AM
and also some more thoughts on U106 and sub groups and ancient samples rms2... If all of the Z381 guys of the Longobard cemetery turn out to be L48... which according to the accumulated data of our Dr. McDonald... is the much more "northern" group of U106... while my Z156 group is much more "southern"... well that is going to be interesting as it makes it look with the limited data we have that some U106 went north into Scandinavia (if in fact it looks like these Longobards came south... which autosomally it sure seems so)... and then you have more southern cline to Z156 at the older sub groups... well that seems to display a trend. I always wondered at the Polish modern members of the Z306 and especially Z304 group who are negative for both DF96 and DF98 (the two major subgroups of Z304) and wondered if there is a connection between Z304 and the East... and BANG there is a Z304 in Hungary... can't say I'm that surprised... and glad to see it was actually visible in the modern day samples... though needed an ancient DNA sample to confirm it ;-)! Make me very excited for the future of aDNA!

uintah106
02-25-2018, 02:19 PM
A theory I have is that Rise 98 being z2265+> by30097-and 99% of U106 men are z2265+> by30097+. Could show z2265+> by30097- men represent the earliest expansion of U106 into scandinavia in small enough numbers that they all died out with the exception of S19589(possibly). A little later their cousins from the south in larger more significant numbers penetrated scandinavia and gave rise to the Nordic Bronze age.

rms2
02-25-2018, 02:41 PM
This is interesting rms2... my next question would be how widespread do you think that red hair gene was at that time... and if not very widespread it would provide a link to Yamnaya through Corded Ware... I personally am favoring a more Northern evolution through Hungary (since we have that U106 Z304 guy near Prague now), but also through the Baltic because we have a slightly earlier RISE98 (earliest U106 found correct?) and the guy in West Frisia who is younger than both RISE98 and Prague Z304 guy... I wonder how much of U106 got to where it is and the Isles through the Baltic and maritime movement because Prague Z304 man is the first ancient U106 not found very close to water/shore as even the U106 Gladiators were technically near the shore... but on an Island so not as significant ;-).

Also the argument seems to be pinning down the particulars as I am pretty convinced that a majority of R1b and R1a got caught up in the Yamnaya expansion westward... but through what contact with what older cultures - that's the particulars. I am happy so far to see oldest U106 - Battle Axe or Corded Ware sub culture... then through whatever expansion and other cultures involved... now is found in Unetice culture in Hungary. I see Corded Ware being listed first... then Beaker... then Beaker is listed as "followed by" Nordic Bronze Age, Unetice, Elp, and some others like Atlantic BA. So we have U106 in Battle Axe/Corded Ware, then R1b U106 in Unetice culture, then R1b U106 in Tumulus (which also followed the Unetice) and/or Elp in West Frisia and the dates line up roughly to the cultures... like I said I think we are on the right track... it's the particulars that are going to take a long time and LOTS of ancient samples to iron out...

Here's my Google spreadsheet on the red hair variant carried by RISE98, Arg160Trp. I'm interested in it because my dad, my youngest son and I are all carriers. I know I got it from my dad because my mom is not a carrier, and one of my dad's older sisters was a flaming, carrot-top redhead. My youngest boy has two copies. He had red hair at birth, but it turned to strawberry blond.

Ancient Arg160Trp (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/15p7MiR1UIsy8ySAbTKX-ju07Zhx3cPIroEmJmedeFvw/edit?usp=sharing)

Here's a modern Arg160Trp (R160W) map from 23andMe. Note its highest modern frequencies are in Sweden and Lithuania.

21741

Curleyprow
03-03-2018, 06:08 AM
That is interesting! I am a carrier of Arg160Trp too. I also have Swedish ancestors with Grunditz being my strongest link ( going back to the early 17 th century). I am U106 with a terminal haplogroup of S1855 which Ian Mac Donald tells me is ancient and scarce. However, I do have a tentative theory on the basis of admittedly sparse evidence, that my origins are from Sweden although I am from the UK.

Curleyprow
03-04-2018, 02:57 PM
As a further interesting piece of information which I recently found out is that the S1855 which is my terminal hoplogroup is also found in a couple of UK specimens so far. Both have ancient Norse names and one is Osborne. I am aware that most surnames are of comparatively recent origin. However, some are not and Osborne is noted to be an ancient Norse derivative. On reading the Swedish Vikings in England : The evidence of the rune stones by Sven B. F. Jansson (1965), more carefully I noted that on the Raby stone there is the inscription ( translated) " Objorn raised this stone in memory of Skarde.He died in England in the host"
So along with the u106 found in Sweden the Rune inscription, my Swedish ancestors and my connection to Osborne in England today through S1855. Perhaps pieces of the puzzle of my origin are coming together!

Bollox79
03-04-2018, 05:47 PM
As a further interesting piece of information which I recently found out is that the S1855 which is my terminal hoplogroup is also found in a couple of UK specimens so far. Both have ancient Norse names and one is Osborne. I am aware that most surnames are of comparatively recent origin. However, some are not and Osborne is noted to be an ancient Norse derivative. On reading the Swedish Vikings in England : The evidence of the rune stones by Sven B. F. Jansson (1965), more carefully I noted that on the Raby stone there is the inscription ( translated) " Objorn raised this stone in memory of Skarde.He died in England in the host"
So along with the u106 found in Sweden the Rune inscription, my Swedish ancestors and my connection to Osborne in England today through S1855. Perhaps pieces of the puzzle of my origin are coming together!

It's a slow, but very interesting and at the same time frustrating detective game Curleyprow! When I first started I found myself in the Z304 group of U106 and they had just discovered the DF98 SNP/group and a few months later they connected that to the House of Wettin... then after a few years later my matches were still pretty old modern wise (like in the B.C. based on Big Y dating per Dr. McDonald) and I got the nice match with the York Gladiator 6drif-3 who is within a few SNPs of my modern matches - and now we have the Unetice man who is R1b-U106-Z381-Z156-Z304/306-DF98-S1911-S1894/S1900... so that gives us a clue to where our line came from... and explains the Eastern matches we have in Z304 like Polish ones... also just off the top of my head in S1911 there is the Dutton family (Norman descendants of Odard de Dutton - Duttons and Warburtons) and matched with them off of S1911 there is a guy from Ukraine... stuff like that. Shows us that early expansion around that time perhaps per the SNPs with more matches like that at older levels ;-). Over time you'll find more matches hopefully... I am currently waiting on a better/closer modern match... along with just more ancient matches. The U106ers in the Longobard cemetery in Szolad was cool huh? :-).

Curleyprow
03-05-2018, 05:48 AM
Bollox79, that is truly interesting. I noted this in a personal communication with Dr MacDonald, who stated that he was also related to this gladiator. An amazing find. He must have been a captured Germani warrior presumably forced into gladiatorial service by his Roman masters! In any event I wish I had that kind of accuracy in my quest. however, would you agree that my suppositions from what I have gleaned about my ancestry and it's connection to Sweden seem reasonable and logical? Please advise.

Bollox79
03-12-2018, 02:34 AM
Bollox79, that is truly interesting. I noted this in a personal communication with Dr MacDonald, who stated that he was also related to this gladiator. An amazing find. He must have been a captured Germani warrior presumably forced into gladiatorial service by his Roman masters! In any event I wish I had that kind of accuracy in my quest. however, would you agree that my suppositions from what I have gleaned about my ancestry and it's connection to Sweden seem reasonable and logical? Please advise.

Sorry it took me so long to reply! As far as the Gladiator is concerned (we are related to two of them actually both 6drif-3 who is in my signature and also 3drif-16 who is R1b-U106-Z381-Z156-Z304/306 and kin to 6drif-3?) per his isotopes and autosomal he may look local to SW Scotland and/or perhaps someplace opposite on the continent? Not too sure how much we can draw from that... but isotopes appear somewhat "local". Give the article on them in the nature a read here https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms10326

Considering the amount of military funeral material I've found record of being found in or around the Mount where these guys were buried... who knows maybe some were gladiators and some auxiliaries?

Yes I'd say you are on the right track reading your earlier postings... so what data do you have so far that makes you think there is a connection to Sweden? Mainly Scandinavian matches above and around your level of SNPs in your group? By that I mean look at the U106 project at FTDNA and look at the SNP levels above you... and of course your closest matches etc... what do you see?

Finn
03-14-2018, 08:54 AM
Here (https://drive.google.com/a/acps.k12.va.us/file/d/0B9vzsK0Ig1mNdlB4LTgzN2ZMNW8/view) is a nice document of y-dna results put together by Jean M from the recent Allentoft et al paper.

Notice that RISE98 of the Swedish Battle Axe culture, a Scandinavian Corded Ware subgroup, is R1b-U106?

That strikes me as a pretty exciting result, although I am not U106+ myself. IMHO, it tends to confirm the apparent very long term connection between U106 and the evolution of Germanic.

Congratulations, cousins! :)

As a result of the postings on Anthrogenica, the qualification R1b U106 in Swedish Battle Axe culture can't be confirmed.....

See:

Posting of Angantyr,
Adding to this, Lilla Beddinge has always been considered a Battle Axe, LN and Bronze Age cemetery. The identified Bronze Age burials are cremations so we can ignore them here, but the 13 Battle Axe and LN graves are located next to each other. 3 graves (46, 48 and 50) that completely lack grave goods have been considered LN, and one (mass) grave (47) has been considered uncertain. ("Considered" here refers to the very influential works of Mats Malmer who among other things excavated several of the Lilla Beddinge graves.)

RISE98's grave, 49, has been considered a Battle Axe grave based solely on the construction features and the single item found in the grave, a bone needle. I'm no archaeologist, but a single bone needle in a mass grave like 49 doesn't seem like an intentional grave gift that can be reliably used to date a grave. And regarding the construction features, Louise Olerud's
The time-depth of Corded Ware burial landscapes: A comparative study of Single Grave and Battle Axe burial alignments in Denmark, The Netherlands and Sweden which was linked earlier in this thread shows that recent radiocarbon dates clearly prove that either Malmer's grave construction typology is not reliable, or that skeletons have been moved between graves to such an extent that the grave constructions can't be used to date the buried individuals.

Moreover, as you also can see in the linked study, RISE98's grave 49 sits right next to the two "clearly" LN graves 48 and 50. So with the lack of Battle Axe features of RISE98's burial and what we now know from radiocarbon dates, there's absolutely no reason to refer to him as "Battle Axe" and use that to argue for R1B-U106 presence in Battle Axe/CWC. (Even though his post-Battle Axe status in itself is no proof for a recent arrival of his genes in the area either.)

When it comes to signs of arrival of new people in Scandinavia, we also have some isotope data for the other individuals in grave 49, see Elin Fornander's Dietary diversity and moderate mobility - isotope evidence from Scanian Battle Axe Culture burials (I can't post links):


Stable sulphur isotope data from more than one element is available for six subjects; four from Lilla Bedinge together [...]
and

There are no indications of residential change for the individuals from [...] Grave 53 at Lilla Bedinge [...]. Data for the remaining three Lilla Bedinge individuals, however, are less clear cut. All exhibit shifts in δ34S, not correlating with δ13C changes, exceeding 1‰. Such minor changes could potentially be the result of variations in δ34S on the local level, although the shift of 1.7‰ between M1 and M2 for the North skeleton in Grave 49 seems to indicate residential change. For the Middle skeleton in Grave 49 and the Child burial in Grave 47, however, values can be considered inconclusive regarding potential changes in residence

So, at least two of RISE98's buddies might have been non-locals...



And although this can be taken with lost of salts we see in the auDNA admixtures that Rise 98 don't clit with the other Battle Axe samples in Southern Scandinavia, in stead it hints more to a Central European background/ancestry (BB/Unetice like).

So I guess the label R1b U106 in Battle Axe based on the sample Rise98 Lilla Beddinge can be considered passé.

JohnHowellsTyrfro
03-14-2018, 01:34 PM
As a result of the postings on Anthrogenica, the qualification R1b U106 in Swedish Battle Axe culture can't be confirmed.....

See:


And although this can be taken with lost of salts we see in the auDNA admixtures that Rise 98 don't clit with the other Battle Axe samples in Southern Scandinavia, in stead it hints more to a Central European background/ancestry (BB/Unetice like).

So I guess the label R1b U106 in Battle Axe based on the sample Rise98 Lilla Beddinge can be considered passé.

He may have been an early arrival but arrival has to start somewhere and doesn't stop with one individual.
The relevance/significance of individual samples or a handful of samples may vary dependent on what people believe to some extent. :)

Finn
03-14-2018, 01:53 PM
He may have been an early arrival but arrival has to start somewhere and doesn't stop with one individual.
The relevance/significance of individual samples or a handful of samples may vary dependent on what people believe to some extent. :)

Indeed John....so are we disappointing the "Battle Axe believers" ? ;)

Mea culpa!

Curleyprow
03-14-2018, 05:22 PM
Not at all Finn. The whole discussion here is so embedded in jargon, which when quoted from sources, I am pretty certain most discussants don't fully understand anyway, and the whole 'science 'of genetic inheritance so open to interpretation that nothing indicated on these pages is more than remotely speculative. You have to be a believer simply to continue with membership!

Curleyprow
03-14-2018, 05:39 PM
Exactly, but have you considered the probabilities of discovery isolated samples of ancient specimens which happen to be the only examples actually available? If U106 was very rare in Sweden you would have to be extraordinarily lucky to find those samples, and statistical probability theory would suggest this as being very unlikely indeed. Because a few ancient specimens have been discovered, probability theory would suggest that such genetic influence of that type must have been quite prevalent to make such a discovery a thousand years later remotely possible.

Finn
03-14-2018, 05:55 PM
Exactly, but have you considered the probabilities of discovery isolated samples of ancient specimens which happen to be the only examples actually available? If U106 was very rare in Sweden you would have to be extraordinarily lucky to find those samples, and statistical probability theory would suggest this as being very unlikely indeed. Because a few ancient specimens have been discovered, probability theory would suggest that such genetic influence of that type must have been quite prevalent to make such a discovery a thousand years later remotely possible.

The samples are indeed in a certain way random, we have to deal with the available we have.....How representative they are is doubtful. But we still can connect those samples with a archeological context. And we can use admixtures. Of course there stays a speculative aspect in it. It's in the end not a kind of mathematics.....

JohnHowellsTyrfro
03-14-2018, 05:56 PM
Indeed John....so are we disappointing the "Battle Axe believers" ? ;)

Mea culpa!

Dr. McDonald extract " the number of direct sub-clades of U106 (current 12) indicating U106 expanded quickly after it formed (alongside P312)... the location of RISE 98 and the lack of U106 in existing Bell Beaker burials likely indicates that the modern disribution of U106 is indicative of it's origin in north west Europe..... "

Finn
03-14-2018, 06:13 PM
Dr. McDonald extract " the number of direct sub-clades of U106 (current 12) indicating U106 expanded quickly after it formed (alongside P312)... the location of RISE 98 and the lack of U106 in existing Bell Beaker burials likely indicates that the modern disribution of U106 is indicative of it's origin in north west Europe..... "

According to Full R1b U106 is on the scene since about 2700 BC.

We have in NW Europe only two samples Lilla Beddinge about 2000 BC. The remains can' t be placed to "Battle Axe". To less evidence. There are indications of a kind of migration status. The admixture is not like those of his "timeline" colleagues of Southern Scandinavia. He is in this respect an outlier with most probably ties to Central Europe. Through the river Oder there is a link with Central Europe.

The second sample is Oostwoud about 1800 BC. Late Barbed Wire/ early Elp culture. Again connected with a migration wave, again from the Central European room, more specific Hungary.

Based on the current oldest R1b U106 you simply can't assume it's originated there= NW Europe (or based on my residence, here;)

In this works he places the origin R1b U106, in Central Europe. This is still probable, even preferable based on what is stated in previous postings here.....

http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~mcdonald/genetics/u106-geography-2015-revised.pdf

Curleyprow
03-14-2018, 06:39 PM
It is certainly mathematics and statistics in particular,that this general genetic inheritance theory seems to be weakest on ( Ian Macdonald being a clear exception). The samples are not random, at least not in a statistical sense. The samples are unlikely to be representative precisely because they are not randomly selected and the sample size that would make the sample representative is unknown , since the population size is indeterminate. However, I think is is very clear that if you stumble upon ancient samples of U106 in Sweden, the probabilities of doing so are extremely small, almost to the extent of being impossible, unless U106 was quite widely evident at that time.

Finn
03-14-2018, 06:45 PM
It is certainly mathematics and statistics in particular,that this general genetic inheritance theory seems to be weakest on ( Ian Macdonald being a clear exception). The samples are not random, at least not in a statistical sense. The samples are unlikely to be representative precisely because they are not randomly selected and the sample size that would make the sample representative is unknown , since the population size is indeterminate. However, I think is is very clear that if you stumble upon ancient samples of U106 in Sweden, the probabilities of doing so are extremely small, almost to the extent of being impossible, unless U106 was quite widely evident at that time.

Yes of course it's partly statistic, mathematics......but who thinks that, based on relatively seen few samples, you can put it a scientific model and hopla there is goes....will be disappointed.

Agree with you statements about R1b U106 in Sweden.....and the consequences.

JohnHowellsTyrfro
03-14-2018, 07:49 PM
It is certainly mathematics and statistics in particular,that this general genetic inheritance theory seems to be weakest on ( Ian Macdonald being a clear exception). The samples are not random, at least not in a statistical sense. The samples are unlikely to be representative precisely because they are not randomly selected and the sample size that would make the sample representative is unknown , since the population size is indeterminate. However, I think is is very clear that if you stumble upon ancient samples of U106 in Sweden, the probabilities of doing so are extremely small, almost to the extent of being impossible, unless U106 was quite widely evident at that time.

I was thinking something similar earlier today before I read your post.
Say you have a local population of 20,000, (just for argument) and guess who turns up, an entirely un-representative U106 guy. I'm not saying it proves anything but it seems highly improbable to me.

alan
03-14-2018, 10:58 PM
The U106 tree on y full is hard to read on a small tablet but it gives the impression that it got off with a bang around 2700BC then generally failed to get bushy in branch terms for a long period (or was brutally pruned) before a secondary takeoff in the late prehistoric and early historic periods? The date of its initial take off does tally very well with CW and if anything U106 may have been in decline during the 3 or 4 centuries after 2500BC when the P312 beaker was ruling Europe. It seems that in some areas the collapse of the beaker network provided opportunities for other lineages ,but in other areas P312 held onto its dominance until today (similar to the area where Celtc speakers are attested at the start of history and to the part of western Europe within the Roman empire). But every dog has its day !

alan
03-14-2018, 11:12 PM
One other thing that seems clear is that the yDNA and general genetic bedrock of the people who would later be recorded speaking Celtic (after a few linguistic shifts in the Bronze Age) is the P312 beaker people. That doesn't mean I'm arguing they actually spoke Celtic from the get go - those shifts probably spread by constant friendly interaction and intermarriage which is manifest in the constant sharing of ideas,fashion and trade across the Bronze Age - but they were the same people genetically and culturally before and after those shifts.

Curleyprow
03-15-2018, 05:44 AM
Yes that's it exactly! A good hypothetical example you have made too.

Finn
03-15-2018, 07:32 AM
The U106 tree on y full is hard to read on a small tablet but it gives the impression that it got off with a bang around 2700BC then generally failed to get bushy in branch terms for a long period (or was brutally pruned) before a secondary takeoff in the late prehistoric and early historic periods? The date of its initial take off does tally very well with CW and if anything U106 may have been in decline during the 3 or 4 centuries after 2500BC when the P312 beaker was ruling Europe. It seems that in some areas the collapse of the beaker network provided opportunities for other lineages ,but in other areas P312 held onto its dominance until today (similar to the area where Celtc speakers are attested at the start of history and to the part of western Europe within the Roman empire). But every dog has its day !

indeed Alan, Tumulus related cultures settled in the mid Bronze Age on the Northern Plain and Southern Scandinavia. I would put my money on their contribution of the spread of R1b u106 in these area’s.

Finn
03-15-2018, 11:48 AM
The U106 tree on y full is hard to read on a small tablet but it gives the impression that it got off with a bang around 2700BC then generally failed to get bushy in branch terms for a long period (or was brutally pruned) before a secondary takeoff in the late prehistoric and early historic periods? The date of its initial take off does tally very well with CW and if anything U106 may have been in decline during the 3 or 4 centuries after 2500BC when the P312 beaker was ruling Europe. It seems that in some areas the collapse of the beaker network provided opportunities for other lineages ,but in other areas P312 held onto its dominance until today (similar to the area where Celtc speakers are attested at the start of history and to the part of western Europe within the Roman empire). But every dog has its day !

When I have to fill in your global description I guess the following scenario could be the case:

Rise 98 Lilla Beddinge is 'LN/EBA' en can be considered as an 'Early EBA bird', he is genetically close connected to the Central European room, BB/Unetice. The Oder is indeed the direct hihgway from Central Europe to Lilla Beddinge.....

But then:

'It seems that in some areas the collapse of the beaker network provided opportunities for other lineages.'

The Oostwoud R1b U106 sample is part of the Elp culture. That was a derivate of the Tumulus culture, Prof. Louwe Kooijmans (1998):


The northern Netherlands is part of the northern group (NW Germany and Denmark) especially of the Sögeler Kreis characterized by a number of distinctive men's graves. The Drouwen grave is the best known Dutch example. It's remarkable that the Elp culture has never been presented as the immigration of a new group of people. Because clearly this period was a time when a number of new elements made their entry while others disappeared. The disappearance of beakers, the appearance of the Sögel men's graves with the first 'swords', among other things, the fully extended burial posture, under barrows; all the factors have been reason enough in the past to conclude that the Elp culture was an immigration of Sögel warriors.


The timing is most probably wrong but Gimbutas (1965) described the right movement:

After the formative period of the first centuries of the second millennium b.c., a new and powerful nucleus emerged in central Europe based on exploitation of the copper sources in the western Carpathians, and later of sources in the Bohemian and central German mountains. This was the Unetice culture. Near the end of the fifteenth century b.c., the Uneticians expanded into the Danubian plain in Hungary......

Were the 'Hungarians' (taking over Unetice) knocking on the door in NW Europe?

uintah106
03-15-2018, 10:08 PM
It is certainly mathematics and statistics in particular,that this general genetic inheritance theory seems to be weakest on ( Ian Macdonald being a clear exception). The samples are not random, at least not in a statistical sense. The samples are unlikely to be representative precisely because they are not randomly selected and the sample size that would make the sample representative is unknown , since the population size is indeterminate. However, I think is is very clear that if you stumble upon ancient samples of U106 in Sweden, the probabilities of doing so are extremely small, almost to the extent of being impossible, unless U106 was quite widely evident at that time.

Mathematically , Although Rise98 is U106, he lacks the snp BY30097. 99.9%of modern U106 men have this snp.

uintah106
03-15-2018, 10:12 PM
Mathematically , Although Rise98 is U106, he lacks the snp BY30097. 99.9%of modern U106 men have this snp.

All other ancient amples are z381+ besides one. Makes sense.

rms2
03-15-2018, 10:19 PM
Dr. McDonald extract " the number of direct sub-clades of U106 (current 12) indicating U106 expanded quickly after it formed (alongside P312)... the location of RISE 98 and the lack of U106 in existing Bell Beaker burials likely indicates that the modern disribution of U106 is indicative of it's origin in north west Europe..... "

How does all that, plus the lack of U106 in Bell Beaker, indicate that U106 originated in NW Europe? In other words, not finding it there indicates it originated there? Huh?

Or is MacDonald including Sweden in "north west Europe"? :confused:

BTW, I don't agree with Finn that RISE98 can be written off as not belonging to Battle Axe. That's not self-evident at all, and was discussed to death on another thread over in the Ancient DNA subforum.

I seriously doubt U106 originated in NW Europe. I don't think P312 originated there either.

uintah106
03-15-2018, 10:28 PM
Rise98 not withstanding,

uintah106
03-15-2018, 10:32 PM
U106 is a late comer to scandinavia IMHO. as opposed to R1a . Barely though and .

rms2
03-15-2018, 10:59 PM
"Late" is a relative term. But anyway you slice it, RISE98 is the oldest U106 we know about, and he died sometime between about 2275 BC and 2032 BC. That doesn't seem all that late to me.

I don't know where U106 first arose, but it didn't show up in Olalde et al's Bell Beaker collection, so it seems to have been missing from the places they looked. I suspect it was in the northeast during the Beaker Period, probably somewhere on the Baltic coast, including the Scandinavian side, but I don't know. I think it probably came south in time to get involved in Unetice and eventually in the Tumulus culture and Elp.

JohnHowellsTyrfro
03-16-2018, 05:31 AM
"Late" is a relative term. But anyway you slice it, RISE98 is the oldest U106 we know about, and he died sometime between about 2275 BC and 2032 BC. That doesn't seem all that late to me.

I don't know where U106 first arose, but it didn't show up in Olalde et al's Bell Beaker collection, so it seems to have been missing from the places they looked. I suspect it was in the northeast during the Beaker Period, probably somewhere on the Baltic coast, including the Scandinavian side, but I don't know. I think it probably came south in time to get involved in Unetice and eventually in the Tumulus culture and Elp.

Theories are theories without ancient DNA evidence, which seems to be in short supply. :)
Perhaps early U106 DNA hasn't been found further South because it wasn't there in the first place. Maybe it was in a culture that practised cremation or something other than burial in graves for the disposal of their dead.
I think Dr. Mcdonald speculated (note speculated) that one possibility could have been that it formed somewhere in the Baltic region so I guess he is including that as being "North West Europe".

Radboud
03-16-2018, 08:18 AM
How does all that, plus the lack of U106 in Bell Beaker, indicate that U106 originated in NW Europe? In other words, not finding it there indicates it originated there? Huh?

Or is MacDonald including Sweden in "north west Europe"? :confused:

BTW, I don't agree with Finn that RISE98 can be written off as not belonging to Battle Axe. That's not self-evident at all, and was discussed to death on another thread over in the Ancient DNA subforum.

I seriously doubt U106 originated in NW Europe. I don't think P312 originated there either.

I am not sure what he meant either, but that quote was like a year ago. I think this is his current view right now:


It abuts the Copper Age cultures of the western Baltic, which provide the basis for the RISE98 U106 burial, and the Bell Beaker culture to the west, which had statistically zero R-U106 until around 1700 BC, when the first R-U106 makes an appearance in the Hook of Holland. Temporally, this combined evidence suggests an ancestral origin for R-U106 within the broader Corded Ware umbrella in the regions between Prague and the Baltic.''

The Baltic Beaker scenario is definitely a realisitic possibility( Especially around the Oder area) as there were BB influences in the Oder & Vistula areas. The Jutland Bell Beakers are less likely, because they were probably largely derived from the Dutch/Rhine Bell Beakers, so I expect a shitload of P312+ subclades there.

However, we have to keep in mind that RISE98's grave did not have signs of Bell Beaker influences. So although RISE98 is not a typical Battle-Axe grave, it certainly does not scream Bell Beaker either.

Michal mentioned it's grave had similarities with "Northern" variety of GAC, based on his grave and burial. This was before the publications of the GAC samples though as they lack Steppe ancestry and are I2+, so the similarities could be just a coincidence, but it's still interesting nonetheless. Here is the quote:






The burial customs in GAC were very heterogeneous (or specific for particular subregions). However, some Northern groupings of GAC (who inherited some burial customs from TRB ) seemed to place their dead in a position that was somehow similar to the one described above for Grave 49 with the R1b-U106 male. Here is a description from the paper by Łukasz Pospieszny:

Meticulous excavations and taphonomic analyses point at another possibility that had been put forward by Swedish archaeologists already at the close of the 19th century. The unnatural, apparently chaotic arrangement of bones of particular individuals buried in passage graves was the effect of the bodies’ earlier tied up and left in a sitting position – decomposing and falling over (Ahlstrom 2004, 254 – 257). Numerous findings of terminal phalanges of boar were interpreted as remains of the hides in which the dead were wrapped. Only one single case of similar practices has been recorded in the Polish Lowlands. At the end of the 19th century a barrow of an unknown shape holding a cist grave was excavated in Rąbino, Pomerania. Inside there were 5 skeletons in a crouched position; some of them seemingly looked as if they had been seated against the walls (Wiślański 1966, 198).

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4664-Request-Y-DNA-haplogroup-results-from-Allentoft-2015&p=92185&viewfull=1#post92185

Finn
03-16-2018, 12:57 PM
"Late" is a relative term. But anyway you slice it, RISE98 is the oldest U106 we know about, and he died sometime between about 2275 BC and 2032 BC. That doesn't seem all that late to me.

I don't know where U106 first arose, but it didn't show up in Olalde et al's Bell Beaker collection, so it seems to have been missing from the places they looked. I suspect it was in the northeast during the Beaker Period, probably somewhere on the Baltic coast, including the Scandinavian side, but I don't know. I think it probably came south in time to get involved in Unetice and eventually in the Tumulus culture and Elp.

Baltics in the LN-EBA and the relationships with Unetice and Tumulus/Elp?:confused:

Based on the oldest samples this can be stated:

- Lilla Beddinge, Scania, 2000 BC is LN/EBA, admixture connected with BB and Unetice in Central Europe
- Jinonice in the Czech Republic, Unetice, 2000 BC
- Oostwoud, North Dutch, Tumulus/Elp 1800 BC

These three are simply interrelated.....all connected with EBA/MBA from Central Europe!

So indeed the smoking gun is not been found, but seen the interconnections between the three samples the 'detection' area is to be found more in the cultures that influenced or are previous to Unetice/Tumulus.....

The Baltic cultures of this time (LN/EBA/MBA) did not influence these broad range from Czech, Scania and North Dutch.

MitchellSince1893
03-16-2018, 01:43 PM
Going back in time we know L11/L151's subclades U106, P312, L238, DF100. A8039 all have to go back to the same location somewhere in central/eastern Europe

Ignoring the Western European locations on yfull's tree and FTDNA projects I plotted the geographic mid points for these smaller subclades

DF100/S1200 (Armenia, Scandinavia, Hungary, Germany) comes out in western Ukraine near the Polish border. If you remove Armenia then it's near near the Oder River (mid point on the German/Polish border...half way between the Baltic and Prague)
L238 (Scandinavia, Germany, Poland, Austria) comes out near the Oder River (mid point on the German/Polish border) very close to DF100 pt above
A8039/S1194(Germany, Scandinavia, Armenia) comes out in NW Ukraine. If you remove Armenia it comes out on the German Baltic coast.

So when McDonald said
an ancestral origin for R-U106 within the broader Corded Ware umbrella in the regions between Prague and the Baltic he's in the same general area as above.

And thus by default P312 too may have begun near this area (Ukraine, Poland, Czech Rep, Slovakia).

So what cultures were in this area circa 3100-3000 BC (McDonald's estimate of U106 & P312's formation)...or started to show up in this area from the east?

Finn
03-16-2018, 02:22 PM
Going back in time we know L11/L151's subclades U106, P312, L238, DF100. A8039 all have to go back to the same location somewhere in central/eastern Europe

Ignoring the Western European locations on yfull's tree and FTDNA projects I plotted the geographic mid points for these smaller subclades

DF100/S1200 (Armenia, Scandinavia, Hungary, Germany) comes out in western Ukraine near the Polish border. If you remove Armenia then it's near near the Oder River (mid point on the German/Polish border...half way between the Baltic and Prague)
L238 (Scandinavia, Germany, Poland, Austria) comes out near the Oder River (mid point on the German/Polish border) very close to DF100 pt above
A8039/S1194(Germany, Scandinavia, Armenia) comes out in NW Ukraine. If you remove Armenia it comes out on the German Baltic coast.

So when McDonald said he's in the same general area as above.

And thus by default P312 too may have begun near this area (Ukraine, Poland, Czech Rep, Slovakia).

So what cultures were in this area circa 3100-3000 BC (McDonald's estimate of U106 & P312's formation)...or started to show up in this area from the east?

It's not ruled out that within the Unetice melting pot there was besides a BB also a CW influence! But so to say this will be more "CW Czech" than "CW Baltic"......

Finn
03-16-2018, 02:30 PM
Going back in time we know L11/L151's subclades U106, P312, L238, DF100. A8039 all have to go back to the same location somewhere in central/eastern Europe

Ignoring the Western European locations on yfull's tree and FTDNA projects I plotted the geographic mid points for these smaller subclades

DF100/S1200 (Armenia, Scandinavia, Hungary, Germany) comes out in western Ukraine near the Polish border. If you remove Armenia then it's near near the Oder River (mid point on the German/Polish border...half way between the Baltic and Prague)
L238 (Scandinavia, Germany, Poland, Austria) comes out near the Oder River (mid point on the German/Polish border) very close to DF100 pt above
A8039/S1194(Germany, Scandinavia, Armenia) comes out in NW Ukraine. If you remove Armenia it comes out on the German Baltic coast.

So when McDonald said he's in the same general area as above.

And thus by default P312 too may have begun near this area (Ukraine, Poland, Czech Rep, Slovakia).

So what cultures were in this area circa 3100-3000 BC (McDonald's estimate of U106 & P312's formation)...or started to show up in this area from the east?



A large group of early Bronze Age communities in central Europe, especially Bohemia, Bavaria, southeastern Germany, and western Poland, dating to the second half of the 3rd millennium bc. Named after a cemetery of 60 graves excavated north of Prague in the Czech Republic. Also known as the Aunjetitz Culture. The early phase seems to have developed out of the local Bell Beaker Culture and embraces a series of regional groups including Nitra (western Slovakia), Adlerberg (mid‐Rhine), Straubing (Bavaria), Marschwitz (Oder Basin), and Unterwölbling (Austria). The later or ‘classic’ Úneˇtice Culture dates to the end of the 3rd millennium bc. Burials are generally inhumations, sometimes within wooden mortuary houses under round barrows, and show marked social differentiation. The most lavish have been compared to the broadly contemporary Wessex Culture burials of southern England. One of the distinguishing features of the culture is its use of tin‐bronze metallurgy.

http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803110638139

Finn
03-16-2018, 03:43 PM
Going back in time we know L11/L151's subclades U106, P312, L238, DF100. A8039 all have to go back to the same location somewhere in central/eastern Europe

Ignoring the Western European locations on yfull's tree and FTDNA projects I plotted the geographic mid points for these smaller subclades

DF100/S1200 (Armenia, Scandinavia, Hungary, Germany) comes out in western Ukraine near the Polish border. If you remove Armenia then it's near near the Oder River (mid point on the German/Polish border...half way between the Baltic and Prague)
L238 (Scandinavia, Germany, Poland, Austria) comes out near the Oder River (mid point on the German/Polish border) very close to DF100 pt above
A8039/S1194(Germany, Scandinavia, Armenia) comes out in NW Ukraine. If you remove Armenia it comes out on the German Baltic coast.

So when McDonald said he's in the same general area as above.

And thus by default P312 too may have begun near this area (Ukraine, Poland, Czech Rep, Slovakia).

So what cultures were in this area circa 3100-3000 BC (McDonald's estimate of U106 & P312's formation)...or started to show up in this area from the east?


This German book "Die Nordgruppe der Oderschnurkeramik" (https://books.google.nl/books?id=Q613THiLV3MC&pg=PA89&lpg=PA89&dq=Marschwitz++glockenbecher&source=bl&ots=sGX83Y6JWo&sig=w_1TCptq_2YVWjSRMVKJsLLkr6E&hl=nl&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiy8buelfHZAhXR_KQKHUhiDtkQ6AEILzAB#v=on epage&q=Marschwitz%20%20glockenbecher&f=false) (= Oder CW) seems to suggest that the Oder part of Unetice had some roots in a kind of Marschwitz BB and Oder CW mix.....

alan
03-16-2018, 03:54 PM
Going back in time we know L11/L151's subclades U106, P312, L238, DF100. A8039 all have to go back to the same location somewhere in central/eastern Europe

Ignoring the Western European locations on yfull's tree and FTDNA projects I plotted the geographic mid points for these smaller subclades

DF100/S1200 (Armenia, Scandinavia, Hungary, Germany) comes out in western Ukraine near the Polish border. If you remove Armenia then it's near near the Oder River (mid point on the German/Polish border...half way between the Baltic and Prague)
L238 (Scandinavia, Germany, Poland, Austria) comes out near the Oder River (mid point on the German/Polish border) very close to DF100 pt above
A8039/S1194(Germany, Scandinavia, Armenia) comes out in NW Ukraine. If you remove Armenia it comes out on the German Baltic coast.

So when McDonald said he's in the same general area as above.

And thus by default P312 too may have begun near this area (Ukraine, Poland, Czech Rep, Slovakia).

So what cultures were in this area circa 3100-3000 BC (McDonald's estimate of U106 & P312's formation)...or started to show up in this area from the east?

CW has always been the only clearly steppe derived culture in that zone c 3000-2500BC. Despite the lack of L11 found to date it still is the only steppe derived culture north of the Carpathians so unless L11 was a fresh wave into that area c 2500BC then L11 is hiding in CW. We may seem to have a lot of CW samples but how many seperate cemeteries have been tested? Not a large number I imagine for a culture that stretched from NW Ukraine to Switzerland and Alsace. And recall too that if bell beaker emerged from some CW subset c2500BC then that is 300years/c 12 generations after early CE so you wouldn’t expect them to be identical to early CW.

Finn
03-16-2018, 04:29 PM
CW has always been the only clearly steppe derived culture in that zone c 3000-2500BC. Despite the lack of L11 found to date it still is the only steppe derived culture north of the Carpathians so unless L11 was a fresh wave into that area c 2500BC then L11 is hiding in CW. We may seem to have a lot of CW samples but how many seperate cemeteries have been tested? Not a large number I imagine for a culture that stretched from NW Ukraine to Switzerland and Alsace. And recall too that if bell beaker emerged from some CW subset c2500BC then that is 300years/c 12 generations after early CE so you wouldn’t expect them to be identical to early CW.

Everything hints to the Unetice melting pot, Lilla Beddinge has a BB/Unetice related admixture...Oostwoud/Tumulus leads to the Unetice area....and Unetice itself has a R1b u106 sample (near Prague). But the dreams about the much more Northeastern Baltics continue without a reason:\ The Oder line between Czech, Eastern Germany, Western Polen, could be the breeding ground. CW and BB were there. So your suggestion about the Oder connection (with Lilla Beddinge) could be bull's-eye.

See, red crosses the two oldest R1b U106 samples and the Oder:
https://www.mupload.nl/img/nplp63ox.png

Finn
03-16-2018, 04:43 PM
How does all that, plus the lack of U106 in Bell Beaker, indicate that U106 originated in NW Europe? In other words, not finding it there indicates it originated there? Huh?

Or is MacDonald including Sweden in "north west Europe"? :confused:

BTW, I don't agree with Finn that RISE98 can be written off as not belonging to Battle Axe. That's not self-evident at all, and was discussed to death on another thread over in the Ancient DNA subforum.

I seriously doubt U106 originated in NW Europe. I don't think P312 originated there either.

Just quite simple rms2, Baltic CW=R1a(-Z645). Unisono. (http://eurogenes.blogspot.nl/2017/03/baltic-corded-ware-rich-in-r1a-z645.html)

The Baltic populations have no auDNA affiliations with R1b U106 rich area's.

The R1b U106 in that area's are offshoots from the Ostsiedlung (Low Lands/North Germans), see the works of Mac Donalds.

MitchellSince1893
03-16-2018, 05:53 PM
Unetice may have helped spread U106 but even proto Unetice culture starting around 2300 BC is too young to be the source of U106 which probably had been around for 700 years by this point.

Finn
03-16-2018, 06:03 PM
Unetice may have helped spread U106 but even proto Unetice culture starting around 2300 BC is too young to be the source of U106 which probably had been around for 700 years by this point.

Agree!

Dewsloth
03-16-2018, 06:08 PM
Unetice may have helped spread U106 but even proto Unetice culture starting around 2300 BC is too young to be the source of U106 which probably had been around for 700 years by this point.

The FTDNA DF19 group admins' calculations have P312 at about 2600 BC, so likewise indicating a few hundred passing after formation/before Unetice.
They have DF19 forming 2400 BC, and the two major subclades of DF19 (DF88 and Z302) both forming at 2300 BC.

MitchellSince1893
03-16-2018, 06:26 PM
CW has always been the only clearly steppe derived culture in that zone c 3000-2500BC. Despite the lack of L11 found to date it still is the only steppe derived culture north of the Carpathians so unless L11 was a fresh wave into that area c 2500BC then L11 is hiding in CW. We may seem to have a lot of CW samples but how many seperate cemeteries have been tested? Not a large number I imagine for a culture that stretched from NW Ukraine to Switzerland and Alsace. And recall too that if bell beaker emerged from some CW subset c2500BC then that is 300years/c 12 generations after early CE so you wouldn’t expect them to be identical to early CW.

You know, we have these present day U152 folks in Eastern Europe and they aren't all due to a founder effect as they come from different U152 subclades
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?11599-U152-S28-in-Bashkirs-Revisted&p=271137&viewfull=1#post271137

And in this same general area we have this "island" of red heads north of the Caspian Sea
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/10/65/63/1065633f1de642155badfd089bf664a3.jpg

Maybe L11 was hanging out on the eastern fringes of Corded Ware and moved through it to central europe.
https://cache.eupedia.com/images/content/Corded_Ware_culture.png

It is the same general area we find L11's ancestor, L23 Sok River, Samara

Finn
03-16-2018, 09:35 PM
Unetice may have helped spread U106 but even proto Unetice culture starting around 2300 BC is too young to be the source of U106 which probably had been around for 700 years by this point.


What about this!? To fill the gap between 3000-2300 BC.

https://indo-european.info/ie/Yamna_migration

MitchellSince1893
03-16-2018, 10:41 PM
What about this!? To fill the gap between 3000-2300 BC.

https://indo-european.info/ie/Yamna_migration

I'll go for the up the Danube route for all of L11 if we find more than just ancient P312 in the Carpathian basin.

As it stands it looks like P312 took a different route than the other L11 subclades (Danube/Tisza vs North of Carpathians);

Or once L11/L11 subclades arrived from Eastern Europe to north of the Carpathians; parts of P312 went south into Czechoslovakia and Hungary while the other L11 subclades stayed North going into Poland and the Baltic region.

rms2
03-16-2018, 11:08 PM
I am not sure what he meant either, but that quote was like a year ago. I think this is his current view right now:



It abuts the Copper Age cultures of the western Baltic, which provide the basis for the RISE98 U106 burial, and the Bell Beaker culture to the west, which had statistically zero R-U106 until around 1700 BC, when the first R-U106 makes an appearance in the Hook of Holland. Temporally, this combined evidence suggests an ancestral origin for R-U106 within the broader Corded Ware umbrella in the regions between Prague and the Baltic.''

. . .



Now that makes sense.

alan
03-16-2018, 11:10 PM
Everything hints to the Unetice melting pot, Lilla Beddinge has a BB/Unetice related admixture...Oostwoud/Tumulus leads to the Unetice area....and Unetice itself has a R1b u106 sample (near Prague). But the dreams about the much more Northeastern Baltics continue without a reason:\ The Oder line between Czech, Eastern Germany, Western Polen, could be the breeding ground. CW and BB were there. So your suggestion about the Oder connection (with Lilla Beddinge) could be bull's-eye.

See, red crosses the two oldest R1b U106 samples and the Oder:
https://www.mupload.nl/img/nplp63ox.png

I think date rather than cultural or geographical origin may be the main factor in the autosomal signal of U106 samples from 2000-1600BC. The period 2500-2000BC and the beaker tradition of exogamy over greater distances probably acted as a blender making most areas of north and central Europe have a 'modern' signal by 2000BC. But I agree that the Oder between Slovakia and the Baltic seems a likely U106's hiding place c2800-2000Bc though other options inckude hold-out CW groups in the Baltic areas of Denmark or Poland . f I recall correctly Czech had a huge beaker population but Slovakia,remained mostly CW through the beaker era.

rms2
03-16-2018, 11:13 PM
I'll go for the up the Danube route for all of L11 if we find more than just ancient P312 in the Carpathian basin.

As it stands it looks like P312 took a different route than the other L11 subclades (Danube/Tisza vs North of Carpathians);

Or once L11/L11 subclades arrived from Eastern Europe to north of the Carpathians; parts of P312 went south into Czechoslovakia and Hungary while the other L11 subclades stayed North going into Poland and the Baltic region.

I know I am just about the only one excited by I7043, the Proto-Nagyrev R1b-L11xP312,U106 from Csepel Island reported by Olalde et al, but I think he is a sign of L11 in Yamnaya in the Carpathian basin. I predict that once we get some Pontic steppe Yamnaya and some Carpathian basin Yamnaya, we're going to see R1b-L11, and maybe both P312 and U106, there.

alan
03-16-2018, 11:21 PM
Everything hints to the Unetice melting pot, Lilla Beddinge has a BB/Unetice related admixture...Oostwoud/Tumulus leads to the Unetice area....and Unetice itself has a R1b u106 sample (near Prague). But the dreams about the much more Northeastern Baltics continue without a reason:\ The Oder line between Czech, Eastern Germany, Western Polen, could be the breeding ground. CW and BB were there. So your suggestion about the Oder connection (with Lilla Beddinge) could be bull's-eye.

See, red crosses the two oldest R1b U106 samples and the Oder:
https://www.mupload.nl/img/nplp63ox.png

I think date rather than origin may be the main factor in the autosomal signal of U106 samples from 2000-1600BC. The period 2500-2000BC and the beaker tradition of exogamy over greater distances probably acted as a blender making most areas of north and central Europe have a 'modern' signal by 2000BC. But I agree that the Oder between Slovakia and the Baltic seems a likely U106's hiding place c2800-2000Bc though other options inckude hold-out CW groups in the Baltic areas of Denmark or Poland . f I recall correctly Czech had a huge beaker population but Slovakia,remained mostly CW through the beaker era.

rms2
03-16-2018, 11:24 PM
Nobody seems to have noticed the following things about RISE98: he carried a red hair variant that seems to have a proclivity for early Indo-Europeans, Arg160Trp (https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4710-R1b-U106-in-Swedish-Battle-Axe-Culture-(a-Corded-Ware-subgroup)&p=350799&viewfull=1#post350799), and lactase persistence (https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4710-R1b-U106-in-Swedish-Battle-Axe-Culture-(a-Corded-Ware-subgroup)&p=351427&viewfull=1#post351427).

alan
03-16-2018, 11:26 PM
One thing to note is that Unetice is more of a technical complex than a descendant of one group. It's been shown that the burial traditions and pottery of the unetice groups of slovakia, central Germany and Poland were late CW derived while the cemetery of unetice culture in Czech, Bavaria were very much beaker derived. So you may well have at least two ethnicities under one technocomplex.

Finn
03-17-2018, 08:22 AM
I think date rather than origin may be the main factor in the autosomal signal of U106 samples from 2000-1600BC. The period 2500-2000BC and the beaker tradition of exogamy over greater distances probably acted as a blender making most areas of north and central Europe have a 'modern' signal by 2000BC. But I agree that the Oder between Slovakia and the Baltic seems a likely U106's hiding place c2800-2000Bc though other options inckude hold-out CW groups in the Baltic areas of Denmark or Poland . f I recall correctly Czech had a huge beaker population but Slovakia,remained mostly CW through the beaker era.

Yes, but right after Scania and Prague in EBA follows Oostwoud/Tumulus/Elp about 1800 BC. When the Baltic option is serious. When this is the main entry. Which tribe/group was the carrier of it from the Baltics to Prague/Unetice and to the North Dutch.

The option Yamna/BBCentral Europe/Unetice/Tumulus has proven connections with EBA/MBA/LBA Scania and with North Dutch.... So there can be identified culture/groups that contained R1b U106.

Rms2 can you explain which carrier group/tribe or culture brought R1b U106 from the Baltics to Unetice (borderland Czech, Poland, Germany) and to the most western part of North Dutch (so the whole Northern plain traject).


And when it's the case that R1b U106 came via the Baltics, why my father (North Dutch) get this kind of admixtures?

PuntDNAL k12:


Using 2 populations approximation:
1 50% Vatya_SG_RISE479 +50% Halberstadt_LBA_I0099 @ 2.208961

Using 3 populations approximation:
1 50% Hungary_BA_I1502 +25% Halberstadt_LBA_I0099 +25% Srubnaya_I0430 @ 1.571445


Mother Punt DNAL K12


Using 1 population approximation:
1 Vatya_SG_RISE479 @ 6.823555
2 Hungary_BA_I1502 @ 7.781680
3 Unetice_EBA_I0117 @ 9.148265
4 Halberstadt_LBA_I0099 @ 9.173981
5 Alberstedt_LN_I0118 @ 9.498103
6 Bell_Beaker_Germany_I1549 @ 10.209095
7 Nordic_LN_SG_RISE97 @ 10.343945
8 BenzigerodeHeimburg_LN_I0059 @ 10.560879
9 Bell_Beaker_Czech_RISE569 @ 14.696379
10 Potapovka_I0419 @ 16.609535

Using 2 populations approximation:
1 50% Hungary_BA_I1502 +50% Halberstadt_LBA_I0099 @ 2.009192

There must have had been a Indo European stream through central europe, through Hungary, to outmost NW Europe......to the R1b U106 core region.
When the Indo-European stream came through the Baltics to NW Europe how came this "Hungarian results" in?

Radboud
03-17-2018, 09:14 AM
I think date rather than cultural or geographical origin may be the main factor in the autosomal signal of U106 samples from 2000-1600BC. The period 2500-2000BC and the beaker tradition of exogamy over greater distances probably acted as a blender making most areas of north and central Europe have a 'modern' signal by 2000BC. But I agree that the Oder between Slovakia and the Baltic seems a likely U106's hiding place c2800-2000Bc though other options inckude hold-out CW groups in the Baltic areas of Denmark or Poland . f I recall correctly Czech had a huge beaker population but Slovakia,remained mostly CW through the beaker era.

It seems that something has changed during the Late Neolithic/ Bronze Age in Scandinavia. None of these specific samples cluster firmly with CWC/Battle-Axe on this older PCA:

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/K2hD4d2hdtIHCQw5tR0hXkwqQAw0zzrFmoneNKFJ_fua1BO51-gxJz9P6qDyjo1oTSaTqNpSzm9BGIw=w1919-h948-rw

Based on this article (http://eurogenes.blogspot.nl/2018/03/on-origin-of-steppe-ancestry-in-beaker.html), I compared Nordic_LN(consists of Rise98 and Rise97) with populations like CWC_Sweden and other relevant populations. It seems Nordic_LN has an elevated Blatterhole_HG score compared to others, but it's overall more similar to Bronze Age/Bell Beakers populations. Was this the result of mixing between CWC and locals or the arrival of undocumented new populations during Nordic LN I in Sweden?(Or an another reason?) I am not sure. However, we need more Nordic_LN samples of high coverage to see if there are patterns. The more samples, the more stable te results.


"distance%=2.6742"

Nordic_LN

Yamnaya_Samara,42.6
Barcin_N,30.2
Blatterhole_HG,21.2
Ukraine_Mesolithic,6






[1] distance%=3.2783

CWC_Sweden

Yamnaya_Samara,60.8
Barcin_N,26.2
Blatterhole_HG,10
Narva_Lithuania,3




"distance%=3.113"

Unetice

Yamnaya_Samara,47.8
Barcin_N,30
Blatterhole_HG,12
Ukraine_Mesolithic,6.4
Narva_Lithuania,3.8



[1] distance%=2.9738

CWC_Germany

Yamnaya_Samara,64.8
Barcin_N,19.6
Blatterhole_HG,11.8
Narva_Lithuania,2
Ukraine_Mesolithic,1.8


[1] distance%=2.3366

Beaker_Central_Europe

Yamnaya_Samara,43.4
Barcin_N,37.2
Blatterhole_HG,16
Ukraine_Mesolithic,3.4


[1] distance%=3.0011

Beaker_The_Netherlands

Yamnaya_Samara,55.4
Barcin_N,24.6
Blatterhole_HG,16.4
Ukraine_Mesolithic,3.6

Individual results of Rise98/97/94.(Yamnaya_Samara/Barcin_N/Blatterhole_HG only!)



[1] "distance%=2.9521"

Battle_Axe_Sweden:RISE94

Yamnaya_Samara,60.4
Barcin_N,26
Blatterhole_HG,13.6


Nordic_LN:RISE97

Yamnaya_Samara,44.4
Barcin_N,32
Blatterhole_HG,23.6


"distance%=3.4038"

Nordic_LN:RISE98

Yamnaya_Samara,48.4
Barcin_N,25.8
Blatterhole_HG,25.8

Finn
03-17-2018, 09:59 AM
It seems that something has changed during the Late Neolithic/ Bronze Age in Scandinavia. None of these specific samples cluster firmly with CWC/Battle-Axe on this older PCA:

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/K2hD4d2hdtIHCQw5tR0hXkwqQAw0zzrFmoneNKFJ_fua1BO51-gxJz9P6qDyjo1oTSaTqNpSzm9BGIw=w1919-h948-rw

Based on this article (http://eurogenes.blogspot.nl/2018/03/on-origin-of-steppe-ancestry-in-beaker.html), I compared Nordic_LN(consists of Rise98 and Rise97) with populations like CWC_Sweden and other relevant populations. It seems Nordic_LN has an elevated Blatterhole_HG score compared to others, but it's overall more similar to Bronze Age populations. However, we need more Nordic_LN samples of high coverage to see if there are patterns. The more samples, the more stable te results.






Individual results of Rise98/97/94.(Yamnaya_Samara/Barcin_N/Blatterhole_HG only!)

Nice job Radboud! I guess we now know that on Yamna, Barci, Blatterhole doesn't make the difference between the samples in Northern and Central Europe......

My key issues stays when R1b (U106) went from the Steppe with a Northeastern/ Baltic bow to Scandinavia and NW Europe, how came the Hungarian BA ancestry in North Dutch?

And that's not only through admixtures in 1:1 comparisons my parents share lots of SNP's with Br2 Hungary.....(for example)

Finn
03-17-2018, 10:12 AM
@Radboud, 1:1 Ancient on 2cM

Mom with a "Saxon" North Dutch background:
https://www.mupload.nl/img/g19o4a.png

Dad with a "Frisian" "Saxon" North Dutch background:
https://www.mupload.nl/img/dfdk4m.png

Finn
03-17-2018, 11:21 AM
Remember this one?

https://www.mupload.nl/img/1eoldqo3.19.02.png

The R1b U106 connection, and the connection with my auDNA, Br2 influenced.


It was only after 2000 BC that large-scale mining operations and production which required specialised metallurgical and organisational know-how began in a few centres, and they reached distant regions as far as Northern Scandinavia. And only from 1750/1700 BC began the actual Pan-European tradition of metal work until its consolidation ca. 1600 BC, with different regions in Europe producing their own products, most specially the cultures of the Carpathian basin[Kristiansen and Larsson 2005].
The contacts of Únětice with Carpathian territories are constant, e.g. in the Únětice-Nitra and Únětice-Hatva horizons, where settlement micro-regions and relationships are difficult to assess. Únětice elites controlled trade routes from the Baltic Sea shores to Aegean Sea artisans. Úněticean daggers are found all over Europe and in Anatolia, and the nature of weapons and metal work suggest a chronic state of warfare and the emergence of a warrior class until its demise by the Tumulus culture, born in the area previously occupied by Únětice groups in Southern Germany.

https://indo-european.info/ie/Italo-Celtic

Especially for my mothers ancestors of Drenthe in this period:


In the province of Drenthe there is a noteworthy series of Early to Middle Bronze Age necklace finds. The necklaces consist predominantly of amber beads, occasionally supplemented by beads of faience, tin and sheet bronze (Exloermond, Find No. I), rock crystal (Emmerdennen, Find No, 2), and glass (Emmer* compascuum, Find No. 7), Altogether eight necklaces contain nearly 2 amber beads, more or less equally divided between the gravenecklaces and the bog hoards.
...
It is remarkable that all the major necklace finds of the Early and Middle Bronze Age are from the province of Drenthe, and have not occurred in the rest of the country
...
Similar amber finds are not only absent in the rest of the Netherlands: they are also absent in the adjacent regions.
Denmark, Schleswig-Holstein and the Luneburg region have a reasonable to large number of Early to Middle Bronze Age amberfinds,as does South Germany; but in North Germany west of the Weser there is a near blank; nor do we have comparable finds in Belgium and northern France.

Brongers & Woltering (1978: pp. 1 -107) emphasize the possibility of local procurement of raw amber: there are occurrences along the North Sea coast
on the Dollard and the Frisian islands Rottum and Ameland and in deposits in East Groningen. Whether the amber in geologically deep deposits would have been accessibIe to Bronze Age collectors is open to question. The seashore occurrences would, however, have been easy pickings; ambercollecting is still possible on the beaches of the Frisian islands (Waterbolk & Waterbolk, 1 991).



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



In Period IB we only have a few females visible in the burial material; this is probably due to the fact that no local female bronze objects were produced during this time (see chapter 3). Therefore, most of the women that are visible during this phase are foreign. The artefacts indicate that they have travelled a long distance; two seem to have come from the Austria-Hungary area, based on the presence of heart-shaped pendants. The woman buried in Fallingbostel, Lower Saxony, definitely had a big impact on her local society. Almost all of her clothing elements (see gure 99), except for the heart-shaped pendant, continued on and were replicated, however indirectly, as part of the clothing custom for subsequent generations; one might say, then, that she stands at the head of the Lüneburg culture.

https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:197017/FULLTEXT01.pdf

from Ernst Probst Der Sögel-Wohlde-Kreis (https://books.google.nl/books/about/Der_Sögel_Wohlde_Kreis.html?id=fxcbFDdmNqQC&redir_esc=y)
woman from Sogel Wohlde/Tumulus in Hungarian style dress:

https://www.mupload.nl/img/2pcegslwl.png

rms2
03-17-2018, 02:10 PM
. . .

Rms2 can you explain which carrier group/tribe or culture brought R1b U106 from the Baltics to Unetice (borderland Czech, Poland, Germany) and to the most western part of North Dutch (so the whole Northern plain traject).


No, I can't explain that, except to guess that it was Baltic Bell Beaker or perhaps a Bell Beaker/Corded Ware hybrid.

I don't even know for sure who my y-dna 4th great grandfather was, and he lived in the 18th and 19th centuries. You'll have to pardon for me not knowing for sure who brought U106 south from the Baltic to the Czech Republic.



And when it's the case that R1b U106 came via the Baltics, why my father (North Dutch) get this kind of admixtures?

PuntDNAL k12:



Mother Punt DNAL K12


. . .


I don't know your age, Finn, but no doubt your parents were born in the 20th century. Really, their autosomal dna test results are not all that relevant to what we're discussing. A lot happened in the interval between the 3rd millennium BC and the 2nd millennium A.D.

Finn
03-17-2018, 02:26 PM
No, I can't explain that, except to guess that it was Baltic Bell Beaker or perhaps a Bell Beaker/Corded Ware hybrid.

I don't even know for sure who my y-dna 4th great grandfather was, and he lived in the 18th and 19th centuries. You'll have to pardon for me not knowing for sure who brought U106 south from the Baltic to the Czech Republic.




I don't know your age, Finn, but no doubt your parents were born in the 20th century. Really, their autosomal dna test results are not all that relevant to what we're discussing. A lot happened in the interval between the 3rd millennium BC and the 2nd millennium A.D.

I know my ancestry pretty well until the 18th century (some 16th/17th century).

And i know that my ancestry is pretty stocky North Dutch (from inland/mother, coastal//father), so yes my parents are 20th century, but my DNA is specific and deep rooted ancestry in a population that is known to be pretty stabile. My parents are both North Dutch are not related still their DNA is 94% the same!

I guess that a major kind of influence like the Hungarian influence is not one that is caused by migration or mixture like in the US could be the case....Especially because Hungarian pops up in both cases. So I guess it's a North Dutch thing. Because there is no known Hungarian migration to North Dutch...until the Bronze Age.

So I'm convinced that I can use my parents as a proxy for the North Dutch/ NNW Europeans.

rms2
03-17-2018, 02:36 PM
. . .

So I'm convinced that I can use my parent as a proxy for the North Dutch/ NNW Europeans.

Well, that's one person you've convinced.

I guess we can dispense with ancient dna altogether, now that we've established that Europeans who have a paper trail to the 18th century are suitable proxies for prehistoric populations. ;)

Finn
03-17-2018, 02:57 PM
No, I can't explain that, except to guess that it was Baltic Bell Beaker or perhaps a Bell Beaker/Corded Ware hybrid.

I don't even know for sure who my y-dna 4th great grandfather was, and he lived in the 18th and 19th centuries. You'll have to pardon for me not knowing for sure who brought U106 south from the Baltic to the Czech Republic.




I don't know your age, Finn, but no doubt your parents were born in the 20th century. Really, their autosomal dna test results are not all that relevant to what we're discussing. A lot happened in the interval between the 3rd millennium BC and the 2nd millennium A.D.


The relevance is that there could be a Nordic influence especially in my fathers's case during the migration age, for the rest the ancestry is typical outmost NW Europe/ Elp culture region.
This is also the region with the highest R1b U106 there was a founder effect of R1b U106 in these region. So R1b U106 Oostwoud was not the only one.....

rms2
03-17-2018, 03:05 PM
The relevance is that there could be a Nordic influence especially in my fathers's case during the migration age, for the rest the ancestry is typical outmost NW Europe/ Elp culture region.
This is also the region with the highest R1b U106 there was a founder effect of R1b U106 in these region. So R1b U106 Oostwoud was not the only one.....

Let's say you know who every last one of your ancestors was back to 1700 AD (which would be quite an accomplishment). That leaves over 4,000 years worth of your ancestors unaccounted for back to 2500 BC.

That's a long long time and a lot of unknown individuals.

And that is why your parents' autosomal dna, while interesting, cannot be of any help to us in puzzling out the origin of U106.

Finn
03-17-2018, 03:07 PM
Well, that's one person you've convinced.

I guess we can dispense with ancient dna altogether, now that we've established that Europeans who have a paper trail to the 18th century are suitable proxies for prehistoric populations. ;)

As said the North Dutch remained pretty unchanged since the big migration, we plot very close to the first Anglo Saxons and the nowadays Danes. North Dutch is homogeneous.

The only major stream came from neighboring NW Germany (Westphalen/ Munsterland/Emsland). But that's not a genetic different population. It's all within 100km, no kidding. I could find no ancestor even beneath the Rhine.....

I know it sounds may be odd (especially for US citizens) but North Dutch are a pretty well conserved NW European population.

rms2
03-17-2018, 03:14 PM
. . .

I know it sounds may be odd (especially for US citizens) but North Dutch are a pretty well conserved NW European population.

Let me get this straight then. You're claiming the Dutch are so unchanged that your parents, born in the 20th century, the 10th century of the 2nd millennium AD, can serve as proxies for people who lived in the 3rd millennium BC?

I think even a relatively quick perusal of Dutch history makes that extremely doubtful.

Finn
03-17-2018, 03:31 PM
Let me get this straight then. You're claiming the Dutch are so unchanged that your parents, born in the 20th century, the 10th century of the 2nd millennium AD, can serve as proxies for people who lived in the 3rd millennium BC?

I think even a relatively quick perusal of Dutch history makes that extremely doubtful.


I claim that the genetics of the North Dutch are since the iron age are stabile. only a major influx from NW Germany. In the fifth century there was an influx from Saxons, Angles, Jutes.
And the Iron age population of the North Dutch has of course also roots in the Bronze Age one.

I put my hand in the fire: 4 generations ago from the 256 ancestors all of them where North Dutch above the Rhine, with only some from neighboring NW Germany (East-friesland/Emsland). Absolutely.

My person the sum of those 256 individuals (all delivering about 0,04%) equals the auDNA of the first Anglo Saxon from fifth century indeed. That's pretty stabile to me......

Finn
03-17-2018, 03:37 PM
Let me get this straight then. You're claiming the Dutch are so unchanged that your parents, born in the 20th century, the 10th century of the 2nd millennium AD, can serve as proxies for people who lived in the 3rd millennium BC?

I think even a relatively quick perusal of Dutch history makes that extremely doubtful.

And when there is some Hungarian influx in these pretty well preserved population I have, seen the history, reasons to believe that's no "recent" but "ancient". Even more because it's something that occurs in fathers and mothers line....

rms2
03-17-2018, 03:44 PM
I claim that the genetics of the North Dutch are since the iron age are stabile. only a major influx from NW Germany. In the fifth century there was an influx from Saxons, Angles, Jutes . . .

Your parents are two individuals, not an entire population, and a lot has happened since the 3rd millennium BC, even in the northern Netherlands (Celts, Germans, Romans, Spanish, Jews, Huguenots, etc.).

I agree that modern people acquired their autosomal profiles somehow, but I don't think the profiles of any two modern individuals is any kind of useful evidence for what we're discussing here.

Finn
03-17-2018, 03:59 PM
Your parents are two individuals, not an entire population, and a lot has happened since the 3rd millennium BC, even in the northern Netherlands (Celts, Germans, Romans, Spanish, Jews, Huguenots, etc.).

I agree that modern people acquired their autosomal profiles somehow, but I don't think the profiles of any two modern individuals is any kind of useful evidence for what we're discussing here.


As said much of the development in the cities in the West of the Netherlands, the actual Holland, you can't project on the North Dutch rural population.

North Dutch shifts are Ertebolle/TRB/SingleGrave/BB/Elp-Tumulus/Urnfield/Nordic influence migration age. And afterwards (middle ages- modern times) some NW German immigration and some other tiny other influences (Spanish/Dissenters). But note that most immigrant dissenters preferred mostly the major cities in Holland above rural Friesland/Groningen/Drenthe.

And I agree you can't have certainty from auDNA but earlier shifts you can see in the "auDNA ancestor cloud"!

I see auDNA, the sum of all my ancestors as a certain cloud.....you and my clouds are different. And because of this cloud structure the sum of certainly gives a kind of shape......collage!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7CyMaOAqyo

rms2
03-17-2018, 04:12 PM
We'll have to agree to disagree then, Finn. Too many centuries have elapsed between the 3rd millennium BC and today, and there is too much uncertainty for the autosomal profiles of individuals to provide much if any evidence of what ancient populations were like.

You yourself belong to y-dna haplogroup E-V22, which is very infrequent anywhere in northern Europe. Are you assuming it came in with Neolithic farmers and has been in the northern Netherlands since then? Or could it have arrived from southern Europe or North Africa much more recently?

Finn
03-17-2018, 04:48 PM
We'll have to agree to disagree then, Finn. Too many centuries have elapsed between the 3rd millennium BC and today, and there is too much uncertainty for the autosomal profiles of individuals to provide much if any evidence of what ancient populations were like.

You yourself belong to y-dna haplogroup E-V22, which is very infrequent anywhere in northern Europe. Are you assuming it came in with Neolithic farmers and has been in the northern Netherlands since then? Or could it have arrived from southern Europe or North Africa much more recently?

E-V22 are white ravens in NW Europe. This was, through testing of my far nephew's by Dr. Larmuseau, already in the 18th century in my family.
My direct paternal line comes from Wartena (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warten), a tiny village in the centre of Friesland, until the end of the nineteenth century only reachable through water.
In 1586 there was a Spanish raid in Friesland and especially in the region of my ancestors. Because the canals etc were frozen the Spanish could slaughter and rape the Frisians quite easily.
'Many pater familias had to see his woman raped in front of their eyes'....according reports.
The Spanish army at that time was recruited from area's (Asturias, Andalusia, Naples and Sicily) that are exactly the area's where E-V22 is about 5% nowadays.
No prove just an educated guess......It left some tiny traces in some admixtures. And on Yfull I'm amidst the people from the Emirates.....

rms2
03-17-2018, 05:00 PM
E-V22 are white ravens in NW Europe. This was, through testing of my far nephew's by Dr. Larmuseau, already in the 18th century in my family . . .

Off topic, I guess, but if you haven't been tested yourself, you ought to be.

Finn
03-17-2018, 05:12 PM
Off topic, I guess, but if you haven't been tested yourself, you ought to be.

I did big Y Rms! (that's why I'm on Yfull)
YF03380 see:
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-V22/

rms2
03-17-2018, 05:18 PM
I did big Y Rms! (that's why I'm on Yfull)
YF03380 see:
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-V22/

Okay. I misunderstood and thought only your nephew had been tested for y-dna.

I'm YF08577 on YFull here (https://www.yfull.com/tree/R1b/) (since we're sharing).

Finn
03-17-2018, 05:26 PM
Okay. I misunderstood and thought only your nephew had been tested for y-dna.

I'm YF08577 on YFull here (https://www.yfull.com/tree/R1b/) (since we're sharing).

Ok!

And I did family finder, au DNA, just like my parents here we are blue crosses on the PCA of Northern Europe (Eurogenes). Father and I are amidst Anglo Saxons/Modern Danes...

https://www.mupload.nl/img/3p554zauaf3.png

Curleyprow
03-17-2018, 05:32 PM
Your YDNA is E-22 which, from what I can gather, is of N African origin. You say you are Saxon-Dutch despite this and a 'white raven', as you put it. Is this not wishful thinking? Is this not unsubstantiated nonsense even by the very implausible arguments proffered on these discussion threads? In Popper's terms of basic science: all ravens are black until there is real evidence of there being a white raven. And there has not.

rms2
03-17-2018, 05:35 PM
I generally plot with Danes, Dutch and North Germans autosomally, as well. I have a Dutch line (surname Snedeker and all the other surnames that went into it), but its founder was a Dane who served as a bodyguard to the Duke of Oldenburg. He married a Dutch woman and settled in Overijssel. Their descendants wound up in New Amsterdam (i.e., New York City) in the 1640's.

rms2
03-17-2018, 05:39 PM
Your YDNA is E-22 which, from what I can gather, is of N African origin. You say you are Saxon-Dutch despite this and a 'white raven', as you put it. Is this not wishful thinking? Is this not unsubstantiated nonsense even by the very implausible arguments proffered on these discussion threads? In Popper's terms of basic science: all ravens are black until there is real evidence of there being a white raven. And there has not.

He explained that. One's y-dna line is but a single line in a vast sea of other lines. Finn is a Dutch citizen and native who can trace his North Dutch ancestry back to the 18th century.

Finn
03-17-2018, 05:43 PM
Your YDNA is E-22 which, from what I can gather, is of N African origin. You say you are Saxon-Dutch despite this and a 'white raven', as you put it. Is this not wishful thinking? Is this not unsubstantiated nonsense even by the very implausible arguments proffered on these discussion threads? In Popper's terms of basic science: all ravens are black until there is real evidence of there being a white raven. And there has not.

As you cas see above in the PCA the E-V22 factor is on the whole tiny.....
I guess with Y-DNA is is like putting a grain of rice on a checkerboard in let's assume 1586, afterwards there are how many generations? 15? 16384 other grains of rice on the board.
Of course this grain of rice stays recognizable as Y-DNA.....but on the whole in the sea of of 16383....the auDNA is bases on those 16384, so something different!

In most admixture I'am outmost Northwest European (even more Danish than North Dutch).

Radboud
03-17-2018, 05:47 PM
My key issues stays when R1b (U106) went from the Steppe with a Northeastern/ Baltic bow to Scandinavia and NW Europe, how came the Hungarian BA ancestry in North Dutch?


We are mainly talking about the place of origin and the intitial spread of R1b-U106. R1b-U106 predates cultures like Unetice Culture, so this mysterious R1b-U106 population probably had a different genetic make up. I do not think that North Dutch is a good proxy for this ancient R1b-U106 population. It's very likely that there were more waves of R1b-U106 to NW Europe though.

Is there even Hungarian BA ancestry in North Dutch to begin with? Or do you mean Unetice admixture? As you know, I am not a big fan of these calculators for these Ancient samples on Gedmatch. I am not denying the Unetice influence, but I am not sure if it's Hungarian BA specifically.

Curleyprow
03-17-2018, 06:19 PM
I am a bit unfocused here I am afraid. Finn's most ancient line, which I took at face value on this profile here suggests that his haplogroup is of N African origin But no this is the haplogroup of his nephew he sates! He is of a completely different line, a bit of Saxon and a bit of Dutch. Interestingly Dr Mac told me recently that on your Y DNA line you can't be a bit of this and a bit of that, you must be or one or other distinct line. What is Finn's terminal haplogroup Please advise Finn.

uintah106
03-17-2018, 06:36 PM
It is certainly mathematics and statistics in particular,that this general genetic inheritance theory seems to be weakest on ( Ian Macdonald being a clear exception). The samples are not random, at least not in a statistical sense. The samples are unlikely to be representative precisely because they are not randomly selected and the sample size that would make the sample representative is unknown , since the population size is indeterminate. However, I think is is very clear that if you stumble upon ancient samples of U106 in Sweden, the probabilities of doing so are extremely small, almost to the extent of being impossible, unless U106 was quite widely evident at that time.

I might agree. The Egtved girl is 1300b.c. from Bavaria. So according to that hypohesis there were many people in Denmark from Bavaria mid nordic bronze age.

Finn
03-17-2018, 06:48 PM
I am a bit unfocused here I am afraid. Finn's most ancient line, which I took at face value on this profile here suggests that his haplogroup is of N African origin But no this is the haplogroup of his nephew he sates! He is of a completely different line, a bit of Saxon and a bit of Dutch. Interestingly Dr Mac told me recently that on your Y DNA line you can't be a bit of this and a bit of that, you must be or one or other distinct line. What is Finn's terminal haplogroup Please advise Finn.

Just simple my ancestors from both sites are North Dutch. My auDNA is typical of NW Europe. My Y-DNA lineage is (like my far nephews of my father's line) E-V22, somewhere implanted in my paternal line. Morst probably due to a Spanish raid in the sixteenth century (or something only god knows how). What's difficult about that?

spruithean
03-17-2018, 06:51 PM
Your YDNA is E-22 which, from what I can gather, is of N African origin. You say you are Saxon-Dutch despite this and a 'white raven', as you put it. Is this not wishful thinking? Is this not unsubstantiated nonsense even by the very implausible arguments proffered on these discussion threads? In Popper's terms of basic science: all ravens are black until there is real evidence of there being a white raven. And there has not.

I'm not sure what ones Y-line has to do with their overall ethnic make-up. Who cares if his Y-line is E-V22, that is but a single lineage in his entire ancestry.

Considering that he is a Dutch citizen, born in the Netherlands to Dutch parents and has a solid paper trail back to the 18th century I would think it is safe to say he is Dutch indeed.

I would try to stay away from defining oneself based entirely off of their Y-haplogroup.

Finn
03-17-2018, 06:55 PM
We are mainly talking about the place of origin and the intitial spread of R1b-U106. R1b-U106 predates cultures like Unetice Culture, so this mysterious R1b-U106 population probably had a different genetic make up. I do not think that North Dutch is a good proxy for this ancient R1b-U106 population. It's very likely that there were more waves of R1b-U106 to NW Europe though.

Is there even Hungarian BA ancestry in North Dutch to begin with? Or do you mean Unetice admixture? As you know, I am not a big fan of these calculators for these Ancient samples on Gedmatch. I am not denying the Unetice influence, but I am not sure if it's Hungarian BA specifically.

What I say is that North Dutch is in the core zone of R1b U106. And I suppose that there has been a founder effect of R1b U106 in that area.

When came R1b U106 to the North Dutch area. We only know s sample of Oostwoud 1800 BC. That's the beginning of Elp/Tumulus.

I suppose that the Tumulus culture is rooted in Central Europe and has connections with Hungary. In the Elp period the man had Hungarian like swords, the woman had Hungarian styled clothes. And the women in Drenthe had necklaces like the ones in Northern Germany, Denmark and Southern Germany.

That's the crux! So I suppose a founder effect in the Elp-Tumulus periode with a link to Central Europe/Hungary. And that founder effect of these Hungarian related people is shown in the auDNA of mom and dad....similar SNP's with a bunch of neolithic and BA Hungarians.

Finn
03-17-2018, 07:02 PM
I'm not sure what ones Y-line has to do with their overall ethnic make-up. Who cares if his Y-line is E-V22, that is but a single lineage in his entire ancestry.

Considering that he is a Dutch citizen, born in the Netherlands to Dutch parents and has a solid paper trail back to the 18th century I would think it is safe to say he is Dutch indeed.

I would try to stay away from defining oneself based entirely off of their Y-haplogroup.

Thanks spruithaen!!! You got it right.....

All my know ancestors are from the North Dutch and bordering NW German area. With some lineages deep into the middle ages, but of course that are a few. Only of some old chieftain families (hoofdelingen). But my family are mostly rural cotters and some are seaman etc. Rural dwellers.

Finn
03-17-2018, 07:15 PM
I generally plot with Danes, Dutch and North Germans autosomally, as well. I have a Dutch line (surname Snedeker and all the other surnames that went into it), but its founder was a Dane who served as a bodyguard to the Duke of Oldenburg. He married a Dutch woman and settled in Overijssel. Their descendants wound up in New Amsterdam (i.e., New York City) in the 1640's.


Snedeker sounds North German in my ears indeed. Most people in North Dutch used the patronym until 1812. Makes it quite difficult. Lots of Peter Jans, Jacob Jans etc ;)
My surname is an exception (curleyprow stop reading ;) unlike the most we had in the 17th century (in 1640) a surname.
It were peat bog colonist in Sappemeer, they belonged to the Ukke Wallist sect, Groninger Oud Vlamingen (http://gameo.org/index.php?title=Groningen_Old_Flemish_Mennonites), strict anabaptist.
In some way my ancestors broke the strict rules and were banned. Then they began to organize Franciscan meetings.....
Most of them were little business man, shipyards, trading with Hamburg and Scandinavia and such like.
In the 18th century my great grand mother married a sailor man from Wartena Friesland (see above), he was called Haye Jans....and his children began to use the surname of mother.

alan
03-17-2018, 07:32 PM
I know I am just about the only one excited by I7043, the Proto-Nagyrev R1b-L11xP312,U106 from Csepel Island reported by Olalde et al, but I think he is a sign of L11 in Yamnaya in the Carpathian basin. I predict that once we get some Pontic steppe Yamnaya and some Carpathian basin Yamnaya, we're going to see R1b-L11, and maybe both P312 and U106, there.

It's interesting given Vucedol's big interest in metals and the v high status of the metallurgist that it did extend into the Czech area. Perhaps Gimbutas was half right and Vucedol influenced CW people around Moravia and gave rise to P312 beaker in Moravia and the appearane of a concentration of high status metalurgist graves there. It would make sense as , although bell beaker has a lot of echos of CW culturally, CW mostly lacked that emphasis on metal working as a high status thing. However, so far, ancient DNA favours L11 as travelling west from the steppes north of the Carpathians. The only way L11 or P312came from Vucedol would be if it moved in a tiny group north and lost its original autosomal signal by 2500BC. Not impossible but..

rms2
03-17-2018, 07:37 PM
It's interesting given Vucedol's big interest in metals and the v high status of the metallurgist that it did extend into the Czech area. Perhaps Gimbutas was half right and Vucedol influenced CW people around Moravia and gave rise to P312 beaker in Moravia and the appearane of a concentration of high status metalurgist graves there. It would make sense as , although bell beaker has a lot of echos of CW culturally, CW mostly lacked that emphasis on metal working as a high status thing. However, so far, ancient DNA favours L11 as travelling west from the steppes north of the Carpathians. The only way L11 or P312came from Vucedol would be if it moved in a tiny group north and lost its original autosomal signal by 2500BC. Not impossible but..

Probably ought to take that discussion over to the Bell Beaker Models thread in the P312 subforum. Ancient autosomal dna might hint at that, but the y-dna thus far doesn't show that at all.

Curleyprow
03-17-2018, 07:39 PM
I am not sure what you are talking about. We are looking for origins here and YDNA ones to be specific . Our origins are U106 or at least that is the concern of the thread. The fact that Finn's family can be traced to the 16 century and that these ancestors are noble Dutch and Saxon people is not really what I believed we were talking about here. To try to make my point.clearer, my Y DNA origins are U106 with a terminal haplogroup of S1855. The fact that I have Swedish ancestors going back to the 16 century is neither here nor there ( at least so I have been told on this thread) In the same way if Finn's YDNA origins are N African, then that is what they are. Using Finn's own analogy of grains of rice, that is his most ancient 'grain of rice' as mine is S1855. The fact that I am British and have ancestors in Britain going back a stretch, does not alter the fact I am Germanic in origin just as Finn is N African. You can't have your genealogical cake and eat it!

Curleyprow
03-17-2018, 07:44 PM
I am not sure what you are talking about. We are looking for origins here and YDNA ones to be specific . Our origins are U106 or at least that is the concern of the thread. The fact that Finn's family can be traced to the 16 century and that these ancestors are noble Dutch and Saxon people is not really what I believed we were talking about here. To try to make my point.clearer, my Y DNA origins are U106 with a terminal haplogroup of S1855. The fact that I have Swedish ancestors going back to the 16 century is neither here nor there ( at least so I have been told on this thread) In the same way if Finn's YDNA origins are N African, then that is what they are. Using Finn's own analogy of grains of rice, that is his most ancient 'grain of rice' as mine is S1855. The fact that I am British and have ancestors in Britain going back a stretch, does not alter the fact I am Germanic in origin just as Finn is N African. You can't have your genealogical cake and eat it!

rms2
03-17-2018, 07:47 PM
I am not sure what you are talking about. We are looking for origins here and YDNA ones to be specific . Our origins are U106 or at least that is the concern of the thread. The fact that Finn's family can be traced to the 16 century and that these ancestors are noble Dutch and Saxon people is not really what I believed we were talking about here. To try to make my point.clearer, my Y DNA origins are U106 with a terminal haplogroup of S1855. The fact that I have Swedish ancestors going back to the 16 century is neither here nor there ( at least so I have been told on this thread) In the same way if Finn's YDNA origins are N African, then that is what they are. Using Finn's own analogy of grains of rice, that is his most ancient origin as mine is S1855. The fact that I am British and have ancestors in Britain going back a stretch, does not alter the fact I am Germanic in origin just as Finn is N African. You can't have your genealogical cake and eat it!
________________________________________ have your genealogical cake and eat it !

No line of yours or Finn's or mine is any more ancient than all the others. We have 23 pairs of chromosomes. We get half from our father and half from our mother. The sex chromosomes are just one of those pairs. Since we are men, we got a y from our fathers and an x from our mothers. The other 22 pairs are the autosomes, and we inherited them from various ancestors, half from our mother's side, and the other half from our father's side.

Each of our male ancestors belonged to a y-dna haplogroup, and each of those men contributed something to the pedigree that eventually produced us. We can't carry dna from all of them, but each contributed something to the people who make up our ancestry.

Even though I am R1b-FGC36982 (well downstream of R1b-P312), I know for example that one of my third great grandfathers was I-M253, and one of my second great grandfathers was E-V13. Another of my ancestors was R1b-U106.

No doubt almost the entire panoply of European y-dna haplogroups is represented in each of our pedigrees.

Finn
03-17-2018, 07:48 PM
I am not sure what you are talking about. We are looking for origins here and YDNA ones to be specific . Our origins are U106 or at least that is the concern of the thread. The fact that Finn's family can be traced to the 16 century and that these ancestors are noble Dutch and Saxon people is not really what I believed we were talking about here. To try to make my point.clearer, my Y DNA origins are U106 with a terminal haplogroup of S1855. The fact that I have Swedish ancestors going back to the 16 century is neither here nor there ( at least so I have been told on this thread) In the same way if Finn's YDNA origins are N African, then that is what they are. Using Finn's own analogy of grains of rice, that is his most ancient 'grain of rice' as mine is S1855. The fact that I am British and have ancestors in Britain going back a stretch, does not alter the fact I am Germanic in origin just as Finn is N African. You can't have your genealogical cake and eat it!
___________________________________ have your genealogical cake and eat it !

I consider that simple minded, but if I make you happy when i call my self North African, I'am North African, or Egyptian....no problem ;)

Let's go back to business. i only used the auDNA to make a point about the influence of Unetice/Tumulus on the North Dutch. Is suppose a relationship between the Unetice/ Tumulus culture and a founder effect of R1b U106.

^^ Alan has a good contribution I suggest to focus on that! good evening to the other side of the North Sea :amen:

spruithean
03-17-2018, 07:54 PM
I am not sure what you are talking about. We are looking for origins here and YDNA ones to be specific . Our origins are U106 or at least that is the concern of the thread. The fact that Finn's family can be traced to the 16 century and that these ancestors are noble Dutch and Saxon people is not really what I believed we were talking about here. To try to make my point.clearer, my Y DNA origins are U106 with a terminal haplogroup of S1855. The fact that I have Swedish ancestors going back to the 16 century is neither here nor there ( at least so I have been told on this thread) In the same way if Finn's YDNA origins are N African, then that is what they are. Using Finn's own analogy of grains of rice, that is his most ancient 'grain of rice' as mine is S1855. The fact that I am British and have ancestors in Britain going back a stretch, does not alter the fact I am Germanic in origin just as Finn is N African. You can't have your genealogical cake and eat it!

How is Finn North African if he is born in the Netherlands and a Dutch citizen born to Dutch parents who were also born to Dutch parents and so on and so forth?

Your Y-DNA does not make you Germanic, North African or whatever. You are not just Germanic because the miniscule genetic percentage that the Y-chromosome makes-up happens to be "Germanic".

Curleyprow
03-17-2018, 07:55 PM
No hard feelings Finn none at all but if we are talking about haplogroups then we are generally given terminal ones like mine S1855 from our genealogical reports.We are all African anyway in our most basic origin. The cradle of humanity is purported to be in South Africa! However, if my report says my most ancient discernible YDBA origins are S21 ( Germanic) then that is what they are. f course this is only one little grain of rice but it is my origin Of course it doesn't include my maternal side either! That is quite obvious.

rms2
03-17-2018, 07:58 PM
No hard feelings Finn none at all but if we are talking about haplogroups then we are generally given terminal ones like mine S1855 from our genealogical reports.We are all African anyway in our most basic origin. The cradle of humanity is purported to be in South Africa!

Think for a minute about your mother's dad and his mother's dad and his mother's dad. Think about your father's mother's dad and his mother's dad and his mother's dad. Now extend the "mother's dad" routine all the way back, as far as you can imagine.

That's a lot of men who are NOT in your y-dna line but who nevertheless are your ancestors.

Do you know to what y-dna haplogroups all of them belonged?

Curleyprow
03-17-2018, 08:05 PM
Really rms2 , you must consider me to be very low brow! I am quite aware of the elementary biological issues you have outlined to me. I would expect most genealogical aspirants as we are all here purport to be, would have an elementary understanding of ordinary level biology!

Curleyprow
03-17-2018, 08:13 PM
Exactly, but you don't need to tell me, I know but then that makes me wonder why we bother to even discuss our terminal haplogroups with such intensity as we do on all these threads. What you are saying is that really the whole discussion is so open and diverse that it is impossible to really say anything, let alone anything that is remotely certain. If that is your argument, as it is, incidentally of some prominent genetic scientists, then you are shooting us all in or proverbial feet. Then there is then precious little to discuss.

rms2
03-17-2018, 08:13 PM
Really rms2 , you must consider me to be very low brow! I am quite aware of the elementary biological issues you have outlined to me. I would expect most genealogical aspirants as we are all here purport to be, would have an elementary understanding of ordinary level biology!

I didn't mean to insult your intelligence or your level of knowledge, but I was trying to answer what you posted. My mistake, but you seemed not to realize the limitations on one's y-dna line and its relative importance.

I attach a lot of significance to my own y-dna line, but that's a personal choice and has more to do with my own interests than it does with the totality of my genome.

rms2
03-17-2018, 08:15 PM
Exactly, but you don't need to tell me, I know but then that makes me wonder why we bother to even discuss our terminal haplogroups with such intensity as we do on all these threads. What you are saying is that really the whole discussion is so open and diverse that it is impossible to really say anything, let alone anything that is remotely certain. If that is your argument, as it is, incidentally of some prominent genetic scientists, then you are shooting us all in or proverbial feet. Then there is then precious little to discuss.

Not true at all, quite the contrary.

It simply gives us a lot more to discuss. We aren't limited to any single line, and we can express an avid interest in all sorts of people who contributed something to our making.

Curleyprow
03-17-2018, 08:26 PM
But how can you focus on them because they would only be a small portion of your genetic heritage. If we all revert back to our most ancient African origins, then anyone who has ever lived is part of our heritage. And that is precisely the argument of some very prominent geneticists who regard the whole enterprise we involve ourselves in as, scientifically speaking, nonsense!

Finn
03-17-2018, 08:31 PM
No hard feelings Finn none at all but if we are talking about haplogroups then we are generally given terminal ones like mine S1855 from our genealogical reports.We are all African anyway in our most basic origin. The cradle of humanity is purported to be in South Africa! However, if my report says my most ancient discernible YDBA origins are S21 ( Germanic) then that is what they are. f course this is only one little grain of rice but it is my origin Of course it doesn't include my maternal side either! That is quite obvious.

Curleyprow it's exactly what Rms2 said you can't make the simplistic assumption that Y-DNA belongs to one cultural or ethnic label.

If you read it well S21 is not originated in an area we latter on call Germanic. And S21 was already there before the Germanic ethnogeneiss occurred....

And yes it was later a major component of the North Sea Germanic tribes. But not al Germanic are S21 and not all S21 are Germanic ;)

So to single minded and unjust. Or to use a Germanic word: Quatsch

rms2
03-17-2018, 08:33 PM
But how can you focus on them because they would only be a small portion of your genetic heritage. If we all revert back to our most ancient African origins, then anyone who has ever lived is part of our heritage. And that is precisely the argument of some very prominent geneticists who regard the whole enterprise we involve ourselves in as, scientifically speaking, nonsense!

It's a matter of personal interest and taste, I guess. Some people don't care about their ancestry. My dad is one of those people.

My own interest does not really extend beyond Eurasia and much beyond the Copper Age (and I'm not sure I buy the whole out-of-Africa schtick, anyway).

For me this is a hobby. That's it. Interesting, fun. I'm pretty happy with my results and with what I've learned, but I probably would have found something about my results to be happy about, whatever they were, because that's the way I'm bent; either that, or I would have just found something else to do.

Curleyprow
03-17-2018, 08:48 PM
Finn
I am not making that assumption. You are making that assumption about what I am saying and persist in calling it simplistic.I am aware of the complexities involved ( possibly more that you are). My haplogroup is Germanic I am defined as such. If you are saying that definition by the geneticist expert who unravelled my genetic background are wrong, then why do suggest you are E-V 22? surely that maybe wrong too? But if these are wrong then we must hold everything to be potentially genetically spurious, and if we believe that then the whole pack if cards collapses!

Radboud
03-17-2018, 08:51 PM
What I say is that North Dutch is in the core zone of R1b U106. And I suppose that there has been a founder effect of R1b U106 in that area.

When came R1b U106 to the North Dutch area. We only know s sample of Oostwoud 1800 BC. That's the beginning of Elp/Tumulus.

I suppose that the Tumulus culture is rooted in Central Europe and has connections with Hungary. In the Elp period the man had Hungarian like swords, the woman had Hungarian styled clothes. And the women in Drenthe had necklaces like the ones in Northern Germany, Denmark and Southern Germany.

That's the crux! So I suppose a founder effect in the Elp-Tumulus periode with a link to Central Europe/Hungary. And that founder effect of these Hungarian related people is shown in the auDNA of mom and dad....similar SNP's with a bunch of neolithic and BA Hungarians.

I do not think that founder effect is the correct term for this as we know there was a big population boom that diversified U106 very early on, so it was well established by the time the Unetice culture came to pass. However, Unetice culture seems to be a good candidate for a second major R1b-U106 population expansion to NW Europe, bringing more R1b-U106 subclades like Z156 (Or atleast some subclades of Z156) etc.

Finn
03-17-2018, 08:52 PM
Finn
I am not making that assumption. You are making that assumption about what I am saying and persist in calling it simplistic.I am aware of the complexities involved ( possibly more that you are). My haplogroup is Germanic I am defined as such. If you are saying that definition by the geneticist expert who unravelled my genetic background are wrong, then why do suggest you are E-V 22? surely that maybe wrong too? But if these are wrong then we must hold everything to be potentially genetically spurious, and if we believe that then the whole pack if cards collapses!

The simple thing is you cant't connect a Y-DNA line with a culture or ethnicity.....

E-V22 is my Y-DNA nothing more nothing less.

Curleyprow
03-17-2018, 08:56 PM
Yes I believe you are correct in that statement and that is precisely why I am here too.I find it interesting in trying to unravel the complexities of my genetic heritage. However, because of what we know about the complexity of it all, It really makes one assertion about ones genetic background as potentially spurious as any other. So everyone should be tolerated in their beliefs about their background as we know, in all honesty, that no one proposition is more scientifically valid than any other, and that most hypotheses made in these forums are not falsifiable because they cannot be adequately tested.

rms2
03-17-2018, 08:57 PM
The simple thing is you cant't connect a Y-DNA line with a culture or ethnicity.....

E-V22 is my Y-DNA nothing more nothing less.

You can in a very broad, general sense. It's generally true to say that R1b-U106 is a major lineage in the Germanic group. That doesn't make it true for every single U106 individual who ever lived, but it's still generally true.

Even so, one's y-dna line is just one single line in one's enormous pedigree of family lines.

rms2
03-17-2018, 09:01 PM
. . . as we know, in all honesty, that no one proposition is more scientifically valid than any other . . .

That's not true. Not all claims and beliefs are equally valid. Some are grounded in the evidence, while others are not.

Since I got my first 37-marker y-dna test from FTDNA back in April of 2006, a lot of ideas have come and gone, some of them spectacularly wrong.

Curleyprow
03-17-2018, 09:02 PM
Of course not Finn. I had a gardener friend who spoke like a Scot and was married to a Scot and was culturally indistinguishable from Scotsmen. However, in fact he was a German soldier who had been captured and imprisoned in Scotland. Genetically he was German, ethnically he was now Scottish because he chose to live there and adopt the Scottsh culture! But we are talking genetics here!

Finn
03-17-2018, 09:04 PM
I do not think that founder effect is the correct term for this as we know there was a big population boom that diversified U106 very early on, so it was well established by the time the Unetice culture came to pass. However, Unetice culture seems to be a good candidate for a second major R1b-U106 population expansion to NW Europe, bringing more R1b-U106 subclades like Z156 (Or atleast some subclades of Z156) etc.

My assumption is that R1b U106 has Steppe roots, had a nursery room in LN/EBA Central Europa and spread it wings from there in EBA/MBA to NNW Europe and Southern Scandinavia....from there it spread in the migration time/ Viking time and later to all parts of Europe.....and later on with the Redekers to NYC! ;)

But time will tell.

alan
03-17-2018, 09:04 PM
Speed reading a few papers it appears both CW and Vudecol were late arrivals in Moravia around 2500BC. That is close to the date the classic bell beaker culture linked to P312 and steppe genes forms. Did a meeting of the mature/late stages of 2 cultures there at that time create the classic bell beaker culture. Or perhaps in south Poland where the CW has some beaker like aspects which does not appear true for Czech CW

Curleyprow
03-17-2018, 09:04 PM
In most cases very flimsy evidence from a rigorously scientific point of view.

rms2
03-17-2018, 09:07 PM
Speed reading a few papers it appears both CW and Vudecol were late arrivals in Moravia around 2500BC. That is close to the date the classic bell beaker culture linked to P312 and steppe genes forms. Did a meeting of the mature/late stages of 2 cultures there at that time create the classic bell beaker culture. Or perhaps in south Poland where the CW has some beaker like aspects which does not appear true for Czech CW

Check out this thread (https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?13779-R1b-L11-Where-from&p=365739#post365739) I just started.

Unfortunately, I've got to get ready to go out and celebrate St. Patrick's Day, so I have to get off the computer until later (maybe tonight, maybe tomorrow).

alan
03-17-2018, 09:19 PM
Happy st Patrick's Day. Ive had a few drinks already and am drying out now ;0)

Finn
03-17-2018, 09:28 PM
Of course not Finn. I had a gardener friend who spoke like a Scot and was married to a Scot and was culturally indistinguishable from Scotsmen. However, in fact he was a German soldier who had been captured and imprisoned in Scotland. Genetically he was German, ethnically he was now Scottish because he chose to live there and adopt the Scottsh culture! But we are talking genetics here!

When you connect a label with your Y-DNA roots than you are most probably a Steppe dweller. In daily life a Brith with a stiff upperlip but at night a rough horse rider....a little Dzenghis Khan.
:deadhorse:

Curleyprow
03-18-2018, 06:49 AM
Thanks for that and you may be right too Finn! Ho Ho! Actually, Dr Mac thinks that the best possibility of s1855 is Viking origin on evidence so far This disappoints me a bit because I saw myself as having some YDNA grains of rice in the Saxon shield wall in 1066!

Finn
03-18-2018, 07:22 AM
Thanks for that and you may be right too Finn! Ho Ho! Actually, Dr Mac thinks that the best possibility of s1855 is Viking origin on evidence so far This disappoints me a bit because I saw myself as having some YDNA grains of rice in the Saxon shield wall in 1066!

No this can't be the case no viking or saxon story's, your Y-DNA points at the Steppe. No pasaran. Enjoy. :biggrin1:

(No I hope it's clear that this is the way you make your statements about others...just stop that kind of thing)

Finn
03-18-2018, 07:41 AM
I do not think that founder effect is the correct term for this as we know there was a big population boom that diversified U106 very early on, so it was well established by the time the Unetice culture came to pass. However, Unetice culture seems to be a good candidate for a second major R1b-U106 population expansion to NW Europe, bringing more R1b-U106 subclades like Z156 (Or atleast some subclades of Z156) etc.


Just searched for it but could not find it, do you know the subclade of the Oostwoud sample? It makes difference if it's Z18 or something that can be connected with the Italo-Celtic/Tumulus spread.....

Curleyprow
03-18-2018, 07:42 AM
Finn
If that is the case tell me your evidence. No pasaran indeed! Not the steppe, maybe the bog! And yours Finn points to Beowulf who came from Africa. North Africa to be precise!

Finn
03-18-2018, 07:52 AM
Finn
If that is the case tell me your evidence. No pasaran indeed! Not the steppe, maybe the bog! And yours Finn points to Beowulf who came from Africa. North Africa to be precise!

Ok beneath that superficial mask of politeness.....
No need to discuss further with this kind of trolling.

Curleyprow
03-18-2018, 07:58 AM
Sorry Finn actually I have made no personal remark until I responded to your amusing remarks about me just now. In my posts I have stuck only to what I consider the scientific issues involved. You are the one making personal remarks about me and I have taken them in the manner in which I thought they were intended, as jokes! I would like to maintain that simplistic belief!

Curleyprow
03-18-2018, 08:09 AM
Finn, no 'superficial mask of politeness' from me, certainly. I am earnest in my quest to find out about my U106 and S1855 terminal haplogroup.

Finn
03-18-2018, 08:11 AM
Sorry Finn actually I have made no personal remark until I responded to your amusing remarks about me just now. In my posts I have stuck only to what I consider the scientific issues involved. You are the one making personal remarks about me and I have taken them in the manner in which I thought they were intended, as jokes! I would like to maintain that simplistic belief!

Ok you have the insight or not. Others can give signs about it. It's up to you what you are doing with this kind of signals.....

For me case closed.

Radboud
03-18-2018, 08:18 AM
Just searched for it but could not find it, do you know the subclade of the Oostwoud sample? It makes difference if it's Z18 or something that can be connected with the Italo-Celtic/Tumulus spread.....

Oostwoud sample is only assigned as R1b-U106>Z381. I am not sure why, perhaps the sample was of low coverage?

Spreadsheet of Williamson:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1aiH9Io6dAMT-ZUh1LLSpXIFR8lT8y5stgTmD2QLac4U/edit#gid=0

Finn
03-18-2018, 11:19 AM
Oostwoud sample is only assigned as R1b-U106>Z381. I am not sure why, perhaps the sample was of low coverage?

Spreadsheet of Williamson:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1aiH9Io6dAMT-ZUh1LLSpXIFR8lT8y5stgTmD2QLac4U/edit#gid=0

Thanks that's indeed a wide umbrella, too wide to state anything sensible about it.......

Finn
03-18-2018, 03:31 PM
Oostwoud sample is only assigned as R1b-U106>Z381. I am not sure why, perhaps the sample was of low coverage?

Spreadsheet of Williamson:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1aiH9Io6dAMT-ZUh1LLSpXIFR8lT8y5stgTmD2QLac4U/edit#gid=0

In second term, at least it's not Z18 or Z9 or derivatives from these lines. These lines are typical for the Nordics.
So it's more likely, also due to it's Tumulus connotation, it's from elsewhere in Europe. As you call it the more "southern" lines.....like Z156 you mentioned.

Radboud
03-18-2018, 04:42 PM
In second term, at least it's not Z18 or Z9 or derivatives from these lines. These lines are typical for the Nordics.
So it's more likely, also due to it's Tumulus connotation, it's from elsewhere in Europe. As you call it the more "southern" lines.....like Z156 you mentioned.

Yeah, this sample was not Z18. However, there is a possibility that this sample was L48/Z9 as L48 is a descendant of Z381. It's like Z381>Z301>L48. I vaguely remember that Williamson assigned this one as Z381 because there was not much to work it in Oostwoud''s BAM file. I think it's more likely that this Oostwoud dude is Z156+ rather than L48/Z9 though.(Alternatively, this sample is just Z381 and negative for the downstream SNP's:P)

Subclades like Z18 and Z9 look like typical Nordic lineages indeed. I expect a lot of Proto-Germanic origins among these branches.

We have seen three Lombards with Z18/Z8/Z326 subclades.(Full results can be found here (https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?13555-R1b-U106-from-%DAn%26%23283%3Btice-Culture-2200%961700-BC&p=362496&viewfull=1#post362496)) To me, it basically look like they are fresh migrants from Scandinavia or atleast Northern Germany based on the results in the paper. We need to have the raw data of these three samples to confirm this though.

Link to the paper:

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2018/02/20/268250

Bollox79
03-18-2018, 07:29 PM
Yeah, this sample was not Z18. However, there is a possibility that this sample was L48/Z9 as L48 is a descendant of Z381. It's like Z381>Z301>L48. I vaguely remember that Williamson assigned this one as Z381 because there was not much to work it in Oostwoud''s BAM file. I think it's more likely that this Oostwoud dude is Z156+ rather than L48/Z9 though.(Alternatively, this sample is just Z381 and negative for the downstream SNP's:P)

Subclades like Z18 and Z9 look like typical Nordic lineages indeed. I expect a lot of Proto-Germanic origins among these branches.

We have seen three Lombards with Z18/Z8/Z326 subclades.(Full results can be found here (https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?13555-R1b-U106-from-%DAn%26%23283%3Btice-Culture-2200%961700-BC&p=362496&viewfull=1#post362496)) To me, it basically look like they are fresh migrants from Scandinavia or atleast Northern Germany based on the results in the paper. We need to have the raw data of these three samples to confirm this though.

Link to the paper:

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2018/02/20/268250

Yep agree with all that Radboud. I wish there was more resolution on the Oostwoud guy... at least to L48 or Z156 as those large sub groups have very different overall distributions in modern pops... even more so do I wish for something under Z381 to help Iain with his dating as Oostwoud man is "younger" than the Unetice sample. From memory the Oostwoud man was carbon dated (right?) to about 1880-1660 B.C. We have Unetice man who is at least U106 - Z381 - Z156 - Z306/305/304 - DF98 - S1911 - S1894/S1900 and Iain had me looking up some stuff from a Czech paper I was translating on those cemeteries including the Prague 5 Jinonice one where our Unetice sample is from... and it appears based on both grave goods and burial ritual that it was the older/early phase of Unetice culture in that area... Jinonice being the most wealthy of all the cemeteries looked at in this Czech paper... I suppose we are lucky enough just to have a good sample in I7196 Unetice man and good info on his grave and cemetery - also note his grave was disturbed by a later "tomb of a Latin."

Additionally, based on my recent reading of some Unetice and MBA stuff... I would be willing to bet that this group/line of U106 - Z381 - Z156 - Z306/305/304 - DF98 - S1911 - S1894/S1900 moved to somewhere heavily associated with Unetice near the Harz Mountains or along the Rhine (though I'm thinking of Nebra sky disk and Unetice Germany here) as DF98 is the SNP of the House of Wettin... and under DF98 is SNP S18823 and our S1911 is the brother clade to that. Their distribution for now (we lack a lot of samples from the East) is heavy in Germany and the Low Countries and S1911 is found in the Low Countries and Isles... add to that any Eastern samples we do have always match more Western members at higher (older) SNP levels - such as the Polish samples in Z304 - so certainly looks that around that guy's time SNP wise... we made some moves West. Considering that I saw a map of early Unetice amber trade of areas of Bohemia (and right where our guy is buried) and trade with Wessex culture in Southern Great Britain - then in the MBA (with tumulus?) the amber trade moved West into Germany and north into Scandinavia - here check out the map... keep in mind there is good evidence that after about 700 years of wealth and control of trade status the Unetice culture apparently had a bit of a collapse with deforestation, population > agricultural infrastructure, and running out of easy-to-mine tin sources - also perhaps a connection to the Baltic for these guys was the Baltic copper trade? Evidence I'd say of moving West with cultures that followed (tumulus). One of the things Iain and I are trying to figure out is what kind of mobility did Mr. I7196 and his kin group have... was he local? Or a migrant? 22190

Bollox79
03-18-2018, 08:08 PM
and additionally Radboud and Finn... there is a paper that shows that Unetice aristocracy from a "princely barrow" in Poland... the Unetice barrow at Kąty
Wrocławskie. There is evidence for his movement over long distances and possible times of scarce food... and his return and his people's recognition of this...

He had similar grave goods as our I7196 U106 Unetice man (though note that U106 man had a bit more - but was also distrubed/robbed at a later date? : "There were two directly associated grave goods: a single
pottery vessel and a double-coiled hair clip made of bronze
wire, located near the head (cf. Moucha 2005, 350, 423,
474)."

I think his grave is carbon dated(?) to about 1785 B.C.

Paper's conclusion: "Certain number of barrows located in Silesia suggests the
presence of high status individuals and the development
of specific centralized social institutions, within Unet-
ice communities. Barrows are also known from Greater
Poland (Łęki Małe; Knapowska-Mikołajczykowa 1957;
Kowiańska-Piaszykowa 2008), and Germany (Leubin-
gen, Helmsdorf, Baalberge, Dieskau II, Nienstedt, Klein-
kornbetha, Hohenbergen, Sömmerda I-II, Königsaue and
Österkörner; Gimbutas 1965, 262-268; Kadrow 2001,
123; Steffen 2010, 19). Although, the highest concentra-
tion of Uneticean barrows can be found in northern and
central Bohemia (i.e. Brandýs, Březno, Mladá Boleslav-
Čejetičky-Choboty, Horní Přím, Chotěšov, Kojetice,
Konobrže, Litovice, Odolena Voda, Prague 5-Řeporyje,
Prague 6-Bubeneč, Selibice, Stračovská Lhota, Toužetín,
Tursko, Zlončice and Želeč; Danielisová 2013, 81,
Kruťová and Turek 2004).
Until today approximately 55 Uneticean barrows has been
found in Central Europe. The majority of monuments was
published in archaeological literature, but only approxi-
mately 60% of that number has been excavated according
to modern standards. The best preserved examples of the
so-called princely graves in Silesia were located at Szcz-
epankowice (Sarnowska 1969) and Kąty Wrocławskie, but
the number of barrows situated around Wrocław was origi-
nally much higher. A certain number of rich graves cov-
ered with stone pavements are considered today to be the
remains of destroyed barrows. Among these are: Kromo-
lin, Gola Górowska with the remains of three monuments,
Krzesin, Platków and possibly Kotla (Blajer 1990, 199;
Sarnowska 1969, 89, 344). A barrow discovered in 1934 in
Nowy Zagórz might have been associated with the Early
Bronze Age: the inner core of the barrow was built of large
stones forming a massive internal flange, typical for Unet-
ice technology at that time. Another example derives from
Groß Gastrose, first excavated by Jentsch in 1888, where a
stone box was recorded beneath the burial mound (Butent-
Stefaniak 1997, 188).
The barrow in Kąty Wrocławskie may be interesting for
a few reasons. First, is the location of the monument.
The Unetice period can be characterized by new cultural
phenomenon which is the blending of settlement with fu-
nerary space, sacral and profane aspects of interment. A
certain number of single, isolated inhumations have been
discovered in Early Bronze Age settlements. Occasionally
some parts of a cemetery may also overlap or intercut the
space of the village. Examples of this practice derive from
cemeteries in both Czechia (Slavkov, District Brno-Ven-
kov) and southern Poland (e.g. Wojkowice), but also from
Greater Poland like the single male skeleton discovered in
Bruszczewo. The tomb in Kąty Wrocławskie was sited in
the vicinity of the settlement (distance of approx. 200 m,
unpublished materials) and it could be argued it was inten-
tionally made visible. Therefore, the monument in Kąty
Wrocławskie should be considered a feature that possessed
an agreed-upon special meaning to a community of people.
Barrows were more than just burials, they were markers of
authority (cf. Binford 1971, Wason 1994). These types of
graves take enormous amounts of effort and manpower to
create, therefore were important political statements on the
landscape, likely used to control trade routes, and marked
control over land.
Another issue is the biological profile of the tribal elites
interred in barrows. Differential diet is one indicator of
resource distribution within the society, not general cul-
tural adaptation. In our analysis, isotopic evidence of diet
was linked to lipid analysis of ceramics found in the bar-
row. Data indicates a general absence of gender distinc-
tion between those buried in princely graves. Moreover,
their diet falls below average for the whole Early Bronze
Age Silesian population, especially when compared to the
population of Przecławice cemetery. The individual life
history of an older male buried in Kąty Wrocławskie bar-
row, especially his long-distance journey, combined with a
potential episode of starvation, calls into question previous
opinions regarding biological profiles of prehistoric elites
(e.g. Haas 1982, 94).
Nonetheless, what seems to be more important is the no-
ticeable and specified distribution of power within local
communities in SW Poland. In a study of the changes in
pre-state social organization of Jutland, Parker Pearson
(1984) observed that the variation among households in
cattle keeping increased, and some individuals appear to
have had greater access to this important basic subsistence
resource than others. Despite the growing wealth for some,
their poorest contemporaries were now poorer than anyone
in earlier periods. Bioarchaeological data from Helmsdorf
barrow indicate such scenario and progressive social dif-
ferentiation in Uneticean populations in Germany. Howev-
er, no such trend can be seen in Early Bronze Age Silesia.
In fact, our investigation reveals socially distinct hierar-
chical model with dynamic ranking system. All communi-
ties sited around Wroclaw display astonishing uniformity
in terms of subsistence and economic equality, with their
elites being subjected to some form of collective control.
In global terms, that may mean that princely graves, com-
monly found in Early Bronze Age Bohemia, Poland and
Germany; despite physical resemblance in fact represent
different social and tribal institutions.
The social arrangements between tribal leaders and their
communities seem to be variable, negotiable and never
static. I. Hodder once noted: ‘The relationship between
material culture and human organization is partly social
(…) But it is also dependant on a set of cultural attitudes
which cannot be predicted from or reduced to an environ-
ment. The cultural relationships are not caused by any-
thing else outside themselves. They just are. The task of
archaeologists is to interpret this irreducible component
of culture so that society behind the material evidence can
be ‘read’’ (Hodder 1991, 4).
The social features such as ranking in the Unetice cultural
hierarchy could have been expressed materially in a num-
ber of ways. The bioarchaeological evidence from Kąty
Wrocławskie presented in this study, evokes a long-forgot-
ten reality of what power might have been: a story of a man
who thousands of years ago set off on a long journey to
the south, occupied in his times by Bohemian tribes of the
Unetice Culture. Suffering from diseases and starving, he
manage to come back home. It was also a story of his com-
munity who waited for him, and by the end acknowledged
his achievements. It shows that prehistoric leadership re-
quired active involvement, and people were active agents.
Therefore their behaviour was not fully predictable."


Bioarchaeology of Social Inequality in the Unetice Culture: A case study. (PDF Download Available). Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283122487_Bioarchaeology_of_Social_Inequality_in_t he_Unetice_Culture_A_case_study [accessed Mar 18 2018].

Bollox79
03-18-2018, 08:20 PM
What I would like to know is the likely hood of someone like this U106 guy and his kin group in the Unetice community East of Prague... what were the possibilities of his kin migrating West (when and how and with what culture)... when we do have a U106 guy in Oostwoud all the way across Europe dated to 1800-1600 B.C. and Unetice man is early Unetice... so did people move into Germany... then to the coast... or did they just move straight to the coast as part of trade? Probably both... but are the samples of Southern Scandinavia and Oostwoud outliers in the sense that they were ahead of the main community... That is why a) we need more resolution on Oostwoud man or more U106 from near the coast ancient samples... and also more MBA or even EBA samples from Germany Unetice or tumulus!!

Bollox79
03-18-2018, 08:25 PM
and considering the DF98 group this is a mostly up-to-date map of DF98+ samples maintained by Dr. Iain: 22191

rms2
03-18-2018, 08:34 PM
We definitely need more y-dna from Unetice. I7196 is the first R1b-L11 from that culture. Up until the final edition of Olalde et al, we had three I2's and one R1a (RISE431) in Unetice, and that last one was counted as Corded Ware/Proto-Unetice. I would like to see 50 or more sets of Unetice y-dna results. Based on what we have seen from other early Indo-European cultures, I get the feeling one particular y-dna haplogroup would come to prevail. It would be interesting to see if that is so, and if so, what that y-dna haplogroup is.

Bollox79
03-18-2018, 09:12 PM
We definitely need more y-dna from Unetice. I7196 is the first R1b-L11 from that culture. Up until the final edition of Olalde et al, we had three I2's and one R1a (RISE431) in Unetice, and that last one was counted as Corded Ware/Proto-Unetice. I would like to see 50 or more sets of Unetice y-dna results. Based on what we have seen from other early Indo-European cultures, I get the feeling one particular y-dna haplogroup would come to prevail. It would be interesting to see if that is so, and if so, what that y-dna haplogroup is.

Yep same here... more samples! I sent this as a quick message to Dr. Iain as I send him random thoughts and messages on our topic from time to time... samples included with our Unetice U106 sample:

I7196 Czech_EBA Czech Republic R1b1a1a2a1a1c1a - U106 - S1894/1900
I7197 Czech_EBA Czech Republic I2a1
I7199 Czech_EBA Czech Republic I2c1
I7202 Czech_EBA Czech Republic R1b1a1a2a1a2 - P312
I7203 Czech_EBA Czech Republic R1

So two I2's... three R1bs - one R1, one P312, and one U106 and subclades etc... from that Jinonice cemetery.

rms2
03-18-2018, 09:14 PM
R1b-U106 could turn out to be the biggy in Unetice, but I have this sneaking suspicion that, when all is said and done, it will be R1b-L2. Yep, I know we don't have even a single Unetice R1b-L2 thus far, but we sure have a bunch of Czech Bell Beaker R1b-L2.

Bollox79
03-18-2018, 09:18 PM
R1b-U106 could turn out to be the biggy in Unetice, but I have this sneaking suspicion that, when all is said and done, it will be R1b-L2. Yep, I know we don't have even a single Unetice R1b-L2 thus far, but we sure have a bunch of Czech Bell Beaker R1b-L2.

With U106 I think certain sub groups will turn up in certain cultures ;-). As with any very large group (u106 and P312) there are different stories for different subgroups... we need more samples to further define this...!!! For instance just based on the few U106 ancient samples we do have... I wouldn't say L48 or Z18 would be big in Unetice - but in the Nordic Bronze Age... instead DF98 (and DF96?) under Z156 is associated with Unetice and subsequent cultures for now... though future data could of course change all that ;-).

Bollox79
03-18-2018, 09:27 PM
Since we are discussing a bit about Z156 and L48 and Z18 (so Northern and Southern groups of U106) I did a quick count of the current kits for z156 including subgroups like Z304, DF96, and DF98. Left out any marked United States or unknown origin, and looked at clusters of closely related surnames and general didn't count one for each one as they can skew the data. Here is roughly what I found for Z156 as a group in the U106 DNA project... logging in under my kit so I could see kits set to show only to members etc.

Z156 out of 303 samples keeping in mind we have a Western Bias of course... and total there are more than 303 kits... but the additional ones were either United States (doesn't tell us anything other than descendants of immigrants duh!) and Unknown... or blank for origin...

Spain = 3
Scotland = 36
England = 83
France = 15
United Kingdom = 15
Ireland = 40
Italy = 1
Germany = 50
Austria = 2
Belgium = 7
Portugal = 1
New Zealand = 2
Switzerland = 1
Greece = 1
Netherlands = 5
Sweden = 11
Norway = 5
Poland = 7
Denmark = 3
Hungary = 2
Wales = 4
Estonia = 1
Finland = 5
Mexico = 1
Jamaica = 1
Brazil = 1

Bollox79
03-18-2018, 09:34 PM
I have a feeling if I did the same count for L48 and Z18 - it would have a somewhat opposite distribution in regards to Scandinavia... but also Isles heavy...

Bollox79
03-18-2018, 09:35 PM
Here is that Czech paper I found plenty of info for Unetice cemeteries (including Jinonice where I7196 was buried) in Prague 5 - the text of the main paper is 22 mb and downloadable along with supplemental stuff ;-): https://is.cuni.cz/webapps/zzp/detail/93742/

Finn
03-18-2018, 09:59 PM
and additionally Radboud and Finn... there is a paper that shows that Unetice aristocracy from a "princely barrow" in Poland... the Unetice barrow at Kąty
Wrocławskie. There is evidence for his movement over long distances and possible times of scarce food... and his return and his people's recognition of this...

He had similar grave goods as our I7196 U106 Unetice man (though note that U106 man had a bit more - but was also distrubed/robbed at a later date? : "There were two directly associated grave goods: a single
pottery vessel and a double-coiled hair clip made of bronze
wire, located near the head (cf. Moucha 2005, 350, 423,
474)."

I think his grave is carbon dated(?) to about 1785 B.C.

Paper's conclusion: "Certain number of barrows located in Silesia suggests the
presence of high status individuals and the development
of specific centralized social institutions, within Unet-
ice communities. Barrows are also known from Greater
Poland (Łęki Małe; Knapowska-Mikołajczykowa 1957;
Kowiańska-Piaszykowa 2008), and Germany (Leubin-
gen, Helmsdorf, Baalberge, Dieskau II, Nienstedt, Klein-
kornbetha, Hohenbergen, Sömmerda I-II, Königsaue and
Österkörner; Gimbutas 1965, 262-268; Kadrow 2001,
123; Steffen 2010, 19). Although, the highest concentra-
tion of Uneticean barrows can be found in northern and
central Bohemia (i.e. Brandýs, Březno, Mladá Boleslav-
Čejetičky-Choboty, Horní Přím, Chotěšov, Kojetice,
Konobrže, Litovice, Odolena Voda, Prague 5-Řeporyje,
Prague 6-Bubeneč, Selibice, Stračovská Lhota, Toužetín,
Tursko, Zlončice and Želeč; Danielisová 2013, 81,
Kruťová and Turek 2004).
Until today approximately 55 Uneticean barrows has been
found in Central Europe. The majority of monuments was
published in archaeological literature, but only approxi-
mately 60% of that number has been excavated according
to modern standards. The best preserved examples of the
so-called princely graves in Silesia were located at Szcz-
epankowice (Sarnowska 1969) and Kąty Wrocławskie, but
the number of barrows situated around Wrocław was origi-
nally much higher. A certain number of rich graves cov-
ered with stone pavements are considered today to be the
remains of destroyed barrows. Among these are: Kromo-
lin, Gola Górowska with the remains of three monuments,
Krzesin, Platków and possibly Kotla (Blajer 1990, 199;
Sarnowska 1969, 89, 344). A barrow discovered in 1934 in
Nowy Zagórz might have been associated with the Early
Bronze Age: the inner core of the barrow was built of large
stones forming a massive internal flange, typical for Unet-
ice technology at that time. Another example derives from
Groß Gastrose, first excavated by Jentsch in 1888, where a
stone box was recorded beneath the burial mound (Butent-
Stefaniak 1997, 188).
The barrow in Kąty Wrocławskie may be interesting for
a few reasons. First, is the location of the monument.
The Unetice period can be characterized by new cultural
phenomenon which is the blending of settlement with fu-
nerary space, sacral and profane aspects of interment. A
certain number of single, isolated inhumations have been
discovered in Early Bronze Age settlements. Occasionally
some parts of a cemetery may also overlap or intercut the
space of the village. Examples of this practice derive from
cemeteries in both Czechia (Slavkov, District Brno-Ven-
kov) and southern Poland (e.g. Wojkowice), but also from
Greater Poland like the single male skeleton discovered in
Bruszczewo. The tomb in Kąty Wrocławskie was sited in
the vicinity of the settlement (distance of approx. 200 m,
unpublished materials) and it could be argued it was inten-
tionally made visible. Therefore, the monument in Kąty
Wrocławskie should be considered a feature that possessed
an agreed-upon special meaning to a community of people.
Barrows were more than just burials, they were markers of
authority (cf. Binford 1971, Wason 1994). These types of
graves take enormous amounts of effort and manpower to
create, therefore were important political statements on the
landscape, likely used to control trade routes, and marked
control over land.
Another issue is the biological profile of the tribal elites
interred in barrows. Differential diet is one indicator of
resource distribution within the society, not general cul-
tural adaptation. In our analysis, isotopic evidence of diet
was linked to lipid analysis of ceramics found in the bar-
row. Data indicates a general absence of gender distinc-
tion between those buried in princely graves. Moreover,
their diet falls below average for the whole Early Bronze
Age Silesian population, especially when compared to the
population of Przecławice cemetery. The individual life
history of an older male buried in Kąty Wrocławskie bar-
row, especially his long-distance journey, combined with a
potential episode of starvation, calls into question previous
opinions regarding biological profiles of prehistoric elites
(e.g. Haas 1982, 94).
Nonetheless, what seems to be more important is the no-
ticeable and specified distribution of power within local
communities in SW Poland. In a study of the changes in
pre-state social organization of Jutland, Parker Pearson
(1984) observed that the variation among households in
cattle keeping increased, and some individuals appear to
have had greater access to this important basic subsistence
resource than others. Despite the growing wealth for some,
their poorest contemporaries were now poorer than anyone
in earlier periods. Bioarchaeological data from Helmsdorf
barrow indicate such scenario and progressive social dif-
ferentiation in Uneticean populations in Germany. Howev-
er, no such trend can be seen in Early Bronze Age Silesia.
In fact, our investigation reveals socially distinct hierar-
chical model with dynamic ranking system. All communi-
ties sited around Wroclaw display astonishing uniformity
in terms of subsistence and economic equality, with their
elites being subjected to some form of collective control.
In global terms, that may mean that princely graves, com-
monly found in Early Bronze Age Bohemia, Poland and
Germany; despite physical resemblance in fact represent
different social and tribal institutions.
The social arrangements between tribal leaders and their
communities seem to be variable, negotiable and never
static. I. Hodder once noted: ‘The relationship between
material culture and human organization is partly social
(…) But it is also dependant on a set of cultural attitudes
which cannot be predicted from or reduced to an environ-
ment. The cultural relationships are not caused by any-
thing else outside themselves. They just are. The task of
archaeologists is to interpret this irreducible component
of culture so that society behind the material evidence can
be ‘read’’ (Hodder 1991, 4).
The social features such as ranking in the Unetice cultural
hierarchy could have been expressed materially in a num-
ber of ways. The bioarchaeological evidence from Kąty
Wrocławskie presented in this study, evokes a long-forgot-
ten reality of what power might have been: a story of a man
who thousands of years ago set off on a long journey to
the south, occupied in his times by Bohemian tribes of the
Unetice Culture. Suffering from diseases and starving, he
manage to come back home. It was also a story of his com-
munity who waited for him, and by the end acknowledged
his achievements. It shows that prehistoric leadership re-
quired active involvement, and people were active agents.
Therefore their behaviour was not fully predictable."


Bioarchaeology of Social Inequality in the Unetice Culture: A case study. (PDF Download Available). Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283122487_Bioarchaeology_of_Social_Inequality_in_t he_Unetice_Culture_A_case_study [accessed Mar 18 2018].


Interesting find!!!

Oostwoud could be likewise. What could they find in the Northern Netherlands along the coast? Amber!
The women of Drenthe/North Dutch were the only one at that time in the Netherlands, along this of Denmark, Luneburger Heide and Southern Germany that wore amber in their necklaces.

I have a likewise story as in Polen, 150 kilometer or so eastwards from Oostwoud in Drouwen/Drenthe you can find the biggest tumulus grave of the Northern European plain (it's still there fully unprotected).


In the year 1927, A.E. van Giffen (1930, I: pp. 84-93; II: Abb. 78; cf. Butler, 1971, with further references) excavated the battered fragment of a prehistoric burial mound at Drouwen, and uncovered one of the richest Early Bronze Age graves ever found on the North European plain (fig. 16a- c). For richer Early Bronze Age burials we must go as far as the Fürstengräber of the Saale valley in Saxo-Thuringia, or the equally pretentious tumuli on the western end of the Armorican peninsula, or the richest of the chiefly graves of Wessex.
By luck, the central inhumation burial under the Drouwen tumulus was still almost entirely undisturbed when van Giffen got there. He found, in a rectangular pit under a four-post mortuary house, a warrior’s grave, presumably that of a chiefly person. None of his grave goods - the sword with decorated blade; the flanged axe (geknickte Randbeil); the set of finely worked flint arrowheads; the polished whetstone; the flint strike-a-light; the coiled-wire gold earrings - are at all likely to be of local manufacture; they are all rare objects in the Netherlands. Probably the warrior himself came from a distance; though it is of course possible that he was a local figure who had acquired exotic accoutrements. Almost all the items have parallels in the ‘Sögel’ (or ‘Sögel-Wohlde’) group of Early Bronze Age male burials, extending across Northwest Germany to Jutland and Mecklenburg and southward to Hessen, though none of them contain so much of them all together. But, if the Drouwen warrior’s grave goods are exotic, the fact that he was buried there under a monumental tumulus (a recent excavation by J.N. Lanting, in October 1985, has shown that the tumulus was surrounded by a ring-ditch some 30 metres in diameter) argues that in life he must have had local authority.


http://rjh.ub.rug.nl/Palaeohistoria/article/view/25026

Bollox79
03-18-2018, 10:55 PM
Interesting find!!!

Oostwoud could be likewise. What could they find in the Northern Netherlands along the coast? Amber!
The women of Drenthe/North Dutch were the only one at that time in the Netherlands, along this of Denmark, Luneburger Heide and Southern Germany that wore amber in their necklaces.

I have a likewise story as in Polen, 150 kilometer or so eastwards from Oostwoud in Drouwen/Drenthe you can find the biggest tumulus grave of the Northern European plain (it's still there fully unprotected).



http://rjh.ub.rug.nl/Palaeohistoria/article/view/25026

When I say we need more Unetice and Tumulus burials in Germany tested I also mean Elp/Sogel in Netherlands if at all possible (due to acidic soil in Netherlands?!?)... we need to see what haplogroups were in what cultures... there could have been several all included... including U106 ;-). I would like to see especially any Unetice in Germany... followed by tumulus in Germany (especially around Harz Mtn. and along the Rhine) along with Elp/Sogel from Netherlands :-).