PDA

View Full Version : R1b1a1a2a1a1c1a (R1b-S497): a native Celtic branch of R1b1a1a2a1a1 (R1b-U106) ?



Tomenable
02-18-2016, 04:23 PM
A Romano-Briton sample 3DRIF-16 (Martiniano 2016) from the Driffield Terrace in York (Eboracum) belonged to haplogroup U106, which used to be linked with Germanic peoples. But that guy was clearly Non-Germanic and preceded any migrations of Germanic-speaking groups to Britain.

Apart from M405/U106/S21+, he also had SNPs Z381/S263+, Z305/S376+, S1785+; so he belonged to R1b1a1a2a1a1c1a (R1b-S497):

http://isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_HapgrpR.html

This subclade is around 4900 years old and had its TMRCA around 4200 years ago, according to age estimates by YFull:

http://www.yfull.com/tree/R-S497/

Its age (as well as the age of U106 as a whole) is much older than the emergence of Proto-Germanic community, so there are only very few reasons (most notably: modern frequencies; but modern frequencies are often not good reasons at all, as aDNA has been showing all the time) to assume that U106 was originally restricted only to Germanic-speakers, and entered other populations only as the result of Germanic admixture.

Could S497 be a natively Italo-Celtic subclade of U106 ? What is the modern distribution of this subclade?

rms2
02-18-2016, 04:36 PM
How was he "clearly non-Germanic", and how is it he "preceded any migrations of Germanic-speaking groups to Britain" when we know from documented history that large numbers of Germanic tribesmen served in Rome's armies as auxiliaries, many of them in Britain?

Balance this relatively late (Roman period Britain) result against all the known Copper and Bronze Age Bell Beaker results thus far, from which U106 is conspicuous by its absence. Then add to it the fact that the oldest U106 result thus far known (~2300 BC), contemporary with Bell Beaker, comes from the Nordic Battle Axe culture cemetery at Lilla Beddinge in Sweden, a non-Beaker site in a country in which no Bell Beaker remains or sites have ever yet been found.

I think it's a stretch to try to make this U106 from an urban Roman context into the representative of an Italo-Celtic U106 subclade. Both ancient y-dna and modern distribution militate against the idea.

Tomenable
02-18-2016, 05:01 PM
Oh, I forgot about the other sample, 6DRIF-3, who was also under R1b-S497, but one step further in the tree - R1b1a1a2a1a1c1a1 (R1b-DF98).

Were they really Germanic gladiators? Both were under S497, locally born (not 1st generation migrants), autosomally similar to locals, etc.

BTW - we have in total 12 samples of pre-Anglo-Saxon Y-DNA from the British Isles (3 Irish BA, 2 IA Britons, 7 Romano-Briton York), and 17% of them (two) are U106. I don't think that Germanic people made up 17% of British-Irish male population already around 100-300 AD.

The fact is, that so far U106 is as much as 17% of Pre-Anglo-Saxon ancient Y-DNA from Britain and Ireland combined.

rms2
02-18-2016, 05:07 PM
Oh, I forgot about the other sample, 6DRIF-3, who was also under R1b-S497, but one step further in the tree - R1b1a1a2a1a1c1a1 (R1b-DF98).

Were they really Germanic gladiators? Both were under S497, locally born (not 1st generation migrants), autosomally similar to locals, etc.

BTW - we have in total 12 samples of pre-Anglo-Saxon Y-DNA from the British Isles (3 Irish BA, 2 IA Britons, 7 Romano-Briton York), and 17% of them (two) are U106. Idon't think that Germanic people made up 17% of British-Irish male population already around 100-300 AD.

You're lumping early and late samples together to support a claim that is just untenable. What percentage of the Bronze Age and pre-Roman samples are U106?

Zero.

Let's see. No U106 at all among the earlier samples, then U106 suddenly appears in Roman York among the remains of men who were probably either soldiers or gladiators, and documented history tells us the Romans used Germanic tribesmen in their armies in Britain.

I don't think this is a tough nut to crack.

Tomenable
02-18-2016, 05:09 PM
You're lumping early and late samples together to support a claim that is just untenable.

Well, without lumping early and late samples together, U106 is actually 29% of late (just Roman era) samples. So even more. :)

But please focus just on R1b-S497 (and its child subclade R1b-DF98), not on all of U106, because that's what we are seeing there.

rms2
02-18-2016, 05:15 PM
Well, without lumping early and late samples together, U106 is actually 29% of late (just Roman era) samples. So even more. :)

But please focus just on R1b-S497 (and its child subclade R1b-DF98), not on all of U106, because that's what we are seeing there.

Well, there is no U106 of any kind, let alone S497 and DF98, among the pre-Roman British samples.

So, focusing on them, we can say they show up suddenly, without precedent, among the remains of men who were either soldiers or gladiators in an urban context at Roman York.

I do not see how that would lead one to think that S497 is an Italo-Celtic clade. Quite the contrary, I think it tends to support the basic Germanic nature of U106.

Of course, we need a lot more ancient y-dna from Britain. If U106 shows up in Bronze Age Britain among the Bell Beaker people or among the very early Iron Age British Celts, then I will change my mind about it there.

ADW_1981
02-18-2016, 05:31 PM
I just checked Yfull and the phylogeny of U106 seems pretty robust. Maybe there is a different branch that is more consistent with Germanic migration to England. Is L48 more common in northern Germany? That seems to be under a different node. As more and more research goes into this, it becomes more clear that there is a divide but it's not always such a broad brush like P312 or U106. For example, there is a lot of support L238 is quite plainly a Norse marker.

rms2
02-18-2016, 05:37 PM
Isn't S497 under Z156? And isn't the German princely or royal House of Wettin R1b-Z156?

I have to confess that I don't keep up with all of U106's various subclades, but I would be surprised if S497 is unprecedented on the Continent.

Tomenable
02-18-2016, 05:40 PM
I've checked FTDNA R1b-U106 Project for R1b-Z306 (= S497) and R1b-DF98 results:

https://www.familytreedna.com/public/U106?iframe=yresults

https://www.familytreedna.com/public/U106?iframe=ymap

Carriers of the most basal subclades of R1b-Z306/S497 seem to be, mostly, British.

rms2
02-18-2016, 05:40 PM
Isn't S497 under Z156? And isn't the German princely or royal House of Wettin R1b-Z156?

I have to confess that I don't keep up with all of U106's various subclades, but I would be surprised if S497 is unprecedented on the Continent.

Apparently there was a thread here on the subject awhile back, and the German House of Wettin is DF98+ (which makes it S497+, as well):

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4906-DF98-House-of-Wettin-royal-BigY-test

Btw, almost everybody's everything from FTDNA is "mostly British" because of the tremendous Isles bias in FTDNA's database:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?6422-Geographic-Imbalances-in-FTDNA-Database-Some-Comparisons

ADW_1981
02-18-2016, 05:41 PM
Isn't S497 under Z156? And isn't the German princely or royal House of Wettin R1b-Z156?

I have to confess that I don't keep up with all of U106's various subclades, but I would be surprised if S497 is unprecedented on the Continent.

Yes, but it would be hasty to assume it was brought over with Anglo-Saxons or Jutes. Celts held the bulk of the territory in Central Europe for a long period and Germanics were restricted to the northern outlier... The safest bet, at least within R1b, is that the Germanic speakers were a mix of both P312 and U106. It wouldn't surprise me if there was a branch of L21 that was Germanic specific.

Tomenable
02-18-2016, 05:47 PM
It wouldn't surprise me if there was a branch of L21 that was Germanic specific.

Western Norwegians have quite a lot of L21 but it's rather due to Insular Celtic ancestry / admixture (similar to that in Icelanders).

It can also be noted that in Medieval times a lot of Germans migrated from the HRE to Scandinavia, and settled in cities there.

For example, there was a time when cities in Norway were predominantly German-inhabited, and Norwegians were rural folks.

Chad Rohlfsen
02-18-2016, 05:56 PM
Isotopic evidence has Scandinavians in a Kent cemetery well before Romans. People have been shuffling around for a long time.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2336094/Bronze-Age-burial-site-3-000-years-ago-contain-Scandinavian-western-European-migrants.html

rms2
02-18-2016, 06:00 PM
Yes, but it would be hasty to assume it was brought over with Anglo-Saxons or Jutes.

I don't think that would be hasty at all, except that here we have some S497 in Britain before the Migration Period arrival of the Anglo-Saxons (a catch-all term that includes the Jutes and Frisians, among others).

What I think is hasty is to make S497 an Italo-Celtic clade of U106 based upon these urban Roman results when there really isn't even a shred of evidence to support it.



Celts held the bulk of the territory in Central Europe for a long period and Germanics were restricted to the northern outlier... The safest bet, at least within R1b, is that the Germanic speakers were a mix of both P312 and U106. It wouldn't surprise me if there was a branch of L21 that was Germanic specific.

When speaking of y haplogroups, it is necessary to generalize to arrive at a big picture that is generally accurate. Thus there is plenty of justification for the generalization that P312 can be associated with Italo-Celtic peoples and U106 with Germanic peoples.

That does not mean there were never exceptions.

One example would be L238, which is commonly found only in Scandinavia and only uncommonly elsewhere, where it can probably be attributed to the Vikings.

In this case, however, there is no real reason to imagine that S497 is an Italo-Celtic clade of U106 or that there are any such clades of U106. We may find one sometime, but we haven't yet.

Apparently S497 is common enough in Germany that the House of Wettin somehow managed to be derived for it.

ADW_1981
02-18-2016, 06:04 PM
I'm aware of a high % of "U106" in Netherlands for example, but I don't know how many of those men are derived for S497, especially in the northern part, as well as Jutland. Refined research is required, and I don't find anything objectionable about the OP.

ADW_1981
02-18-2016, 06:06 PM
Western Norwegians have quite a lot of L21 but it's rather due to Insular Celtic ancestry / admixture (similar to that in Icelanders).

It can also be noted that in Medieval times a lot of Germans migrated from the HRE to Scandinavia, and settled in cities there.

For example, there was a time when cities in Norway were predominantly German-inhabited, and Norwegians were rural folks.

Without comparing SNP and STR evidence, the latter being haplotypes of living, breathing Irish/Scottish/Welsh men, linking it to "Insular Celtic" ancestry is equally hasty.

ADW_1981
02-18-2016, 06:09 PM
Apparently S497 is common enough in Germany that the House of Wettin somehow managed to be derived for it.

You're also aware from several recent papers that it was a specific part of NW Europe that the A-S came from, not just anywhere in modern Germany.

rms2
02-18-2016, 06:13 PM
You're also aware from several recent papers that it was a specific part of NW Europe that the A-S came from, not just anywhere in modern Germany.

Yes, I am very familiar with that period in history and with the Anglo-Saxons. I also know they drew in tribesmen from all over northern Europe, including Slavic Wends and Suevi (Schwaben) from farther south in what is now Germany.

rms2
02-18-2016, 06:18 PM
I'm aware of a high % of "U106" in Netherlands for example, but I don't know how many of those men are derived for S497, especially in the northern part, as well as Jutland. Refined research is required, and I don't find anything objectionable about the OP.

I don't find it "objectionable" either. Just unlikely to be true.

Back to what you mentioned about the Celts holding Central Europe and Germanics being restricted to the north: It's interesting that there has been no U106 among Bell Beaker results from Central Europe, and the single Bronze Age U106 result thus far comes from the Nordic Battle Axe cemetery at Lilla Beddinge in Sweden.

Honestly, I really doubt that U106 had any significant connection to Italo-Celtic speakers.

Tomenable
02-18-2016, 06:27 PM
Apparently there was a thread here on the subject awhile back, and the German House of Wettin is DF98+ (which makes it S497+, as well):

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4906-DF98-House-of-Wettin-royal-BigY-test

Btw, almost everybody's everything from FTDNA is "mostly British" because of the tremendous Isles bias in FTDNA's database:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?6422-Geographic-Imbalances-in-FTDNA-Database-Some-Comparisons

Good to know, but the House of Wettin had very mixed origins according to this publication:

Erich Brandenburg, "Die Ahnen Augusts des Starken" (Abhandl. der Saechs. Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-hist. Klasse, Bd.43, Nr.5), 1937.

Here is such a chart, showing 4096 ancestors (from 14 generations back) of Augustus II Wettin:

As you can see 2412 out of 4096 ancestors (so 59%) were "Germanen", the other 41% weren't:

http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f161/11aaabbb11/brandenburgerich1.jpg

And here a chart for 27 generations (also from the same 1937 study by Erich Brandenburg): :)

As you can see, 27 generations ago 231,756 out of over 67 million of his ancestors were Celts:

http://s14.postimg.org/r5wbtld4x/27_generations.png

Comparison of 14 and 27 generations (in the latter case numbers are in thousands, apparently):

http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f161/11aaabbb11/brandenburgerich2.jpg

PS:

This is how they researched ancestry at that time, it seems. Good that we have genetic studies. :)

Tomenable
02-18-2016, 06:35 PM
According to the same 1937 publication, Joachim Friedrich Hohenzollern (1546-1608) was only 37% German:

http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f161/11aaabbb11/brandenburgerich6.jpg

And another German monarch, Heinrich der Fromme, was just 27% of German blood, according to that study:

http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f161/11aaabbb11/brandenburgerich5.jpg

rms2
02-18-2016, 06:37 PM
Come on, Tomenable. You're not seriously trying to use that table to cast doubt on the fact that the House of Wettin was German?

Your original notion is just becoming more and more far fetched and unlikely.

rms2
02-18-2016, 06:40 PM
According to the same 1937 publication, Joachim Friedrich Hohenzollern (1546-1608) was only 37% German:

http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f161/11aaabbb11/brandenburgerich6.jpg

And another German monarch, Heinrich der Fromme, was just 27% of German blood, according to that study:

http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f161/11aaabbb11/brandenburgerich5.jpg

I read German fairly well, and one thing that is missing from that saga of Blutmischung is British ancestry.

Tomenable
02-18-2016, 06:41 PM
Well you are claiming that their Y-DNA was Germanic in origin, which doesn't need to be the case because royal dynasties are very mixed.

Even that 1937 study from Nazi Germany admitted this (as an unintended effect of their attempt to identify the most purely German royalty).


and one thing that is missing from that saga of Blutmischung is British ancestry.

But "Kelten" are there! ;) As well as "Italiener", "Franzosen", "Spanier", "Angel-sachsen" (who could carry an assimilated Briton lineage), etc.

rms2
02-18-2016, 06:46 PM
Well you are claiming that their Y-DNA was Germanic in origin, which doesn't need to be the case because royal dynasties are very mixed.

Even that 1937 study from Nazi Germany admitted this (as an unintended effect of their attempt to identify the most purely German royalty).

Yes, I am. All of us are mixed, but uniparental markers like y-dna belong to a single line, and the preponderance of the evidence connects U106 to Germanic speakers.

Unless you can show that the House of Wettin was British in its y-dna, its being S497+ DF98+ and German militates against your original argument.

ADW_1981
02-18-2016, 06:49 PM
What I am suggesting is the common ancestor of L21+ and U106+ predates the identification of Celtic and Germanic speaker, and as a result, we may have movements of people who are of a mixed bag. Perhaps some of the later settlements of Celts in Britain had U106 or U152 signatures, rather than the earlier settlement of Bell Beaker who were L21. The later in time we go, with more and more male founders who had greater mobility, the less clear and simple it becomes.

Tomenable
02-18-2016, 06:58 PM
As for that ancient U106 from Lilla Beddinge - it is 4300-4000 years old, while U106 in general is 4900 years old according to YFull:

http://www.yfull.com/tree/R-U106/

By contrast for example Poltavka outlier (R1a-Z94) is 4900-4500 years old, while Z94 in general is 4800 years old according to YFull:

http://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Z94/

And Z93 is not much older, only 5000 years old according to YFull (its TMRCA being actually the same as that of Z94 - 4800 ybp):

http://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Z93/

So the confidence that Poltavka outlier was a Proto-Indo-Iranian is much greater than the confidence that Lilla Beddinge was a PGmc.

U106 could expand also into other places than Scandinavia between 4900 and 4300-4000 years ago.

It did not have to be exclusively Proto-Germanic.

rms2
02-18-2016, 06:59 PM
What I am suggesting is the common ancestor of L21+ and U106+ predates the identification of Celtic and Germanic speaker, and as a result, we may have movements of people who are of a mixed bag.

If they were so thoroughly mixed, one wonders why clines in the distribution of y haplogroups exist and why those distributions seem to fit historic ethnolinguistic patterns.

One wonders too how the Bell Beaker results and the pre-Roman British results missed this kaleidoscope of y-dna diversity.



Perhaps some of the later settlements of Celts in Britain had U106 or U152 signatures, rather than the earlier settlement of Bell Beaker who were L21. The later in time we go, with more and more male founders who had greater mobility, the less clear and simple it becomes.

You're mixing P312 and U106. I have no doubt that there was plenty of U152 and DF27 among the Celts, since the distribution of P312 fits that of the ancient Celts pretty well, and we already have one U152+ Bell Beaker result.

U106, however, is another story. There may have been some U106 Celts someplace, but they would have been the exception.

rms2
02-18-2016, 07:03 PM
As for that ancient U106 from Lilla Beddinge - it is 4300-4000 years old, while U106 in general is 4900 years old according to YFull:

http://www.yfull.com/tree/R-U106/

By contrast for example Poltavka outlier (R1a-Z94) is 4900-4500 years old, while Z94 in general is 4800 years old according to YFull:

http://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Z94/

And Z93 is not much older, only 5000 years old according to YFull:

http://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Z93/

So the confidence that Poltavka outlier was a Proto-Indo-Iranian is much greater than the confidence that Lilla Beddinge was a PGmc.

U106 could expand also into other places than Scandinavia between 4900 and 4300-4000 years ago.

It did not have to be exclusively Proto-Germanic.

The point is that the oldest U106+ result thus far, the only one from the Bronze Age, did not occur in a likely Italo-Celtic, Bell Beaker context but in a Nordic, Scandinavian, Proto-Germanic context.

Meanwhile, Bell Beaker from Germany, a place where U106 is quite frequent today, is altogether lacking in U106 thus far.

Do you really believe these samples from Roman York are likely to represent an Italo-Celtic clade of U106? Really? Or are you just arguing for fun?

Tomenable
02-18-2016, 07:06 PM
Do you really believe these samples from Roman York are likely to represent an Italo-Celtic clade of U106?

I believe that it is one of possibilities, yes.

rms2
02-18-2016, 07:07 PM
I believe that it is one of possibilities, yes.

Oh, I think that is remotely possible, just highly unlikely.

ADW_1981
02-18-2016, 07:11 PM
If they were so thoroughly mixed, one wonders why clines in the distribution of y haplogroups exist and why those distributions seem to fit historic ethnolinguistic patterns.

One wonders too how the Bell Beaker results and the pre-Roman British results missed this kaleidoscope of y-dna diversity.



You're mixing P312 and U106. I have no doubt that there was plenty of U152 and DF27 among the Celts, since the distribution of P312 fits that of the ancient Celts pretty well, and we already have one U152+ Bell Beaker result.

U106, however is another story. There may have been some U106 Celts someplace, but they would have been the exception.

Our continental aDNA is well earlier than the definition of Celt or German speaker. The only Halstatt aDNA we have looks like 2 R1b (xL51) and 1 other G sample that fits the common European type. You're referencing 3000 BC period, and I am referring to the 500 BC period or later....

We can banter about who was speaking what 4500 years ago along with Bell Beaker and the P312 findings, but it's rather far fetched to assume the haplogroups remained constant thousands of years later.

Tomenable
02-18-2016, 07:12 PM
since the distribution of P312 fits that of the ancient Celts pretty well

It also fits that of the ancient Italics (except for some branches like L21, which don't). Generally the Italo-Celtic family seems to share major subclades of P312. Or were there some subclades which were specifically Italic, and some which were specifically Celtic ???

U152 definitely looks like being most Italic of P312 sub-branches, but it looks Celtic as well.

JohnHowellsTyrfro
02-18-2016, 09:29 PM
I've asked this question on other threads and not had any real answer. I'm not making a case, just trying to understand something.
Why does it seem that there is a relatively high proportion of U106 in North West Scotland (assuming the data is accurate) which I don't believe was affected much by Saxon migration? Norse or ?
I've posted the Cymru DNA distribution map before, so no point in doing so again.

jdean
02-19-2016, 12:01 AM
I've asked this question on other threads and not had any real answer. I'm not making a case, just trying to understand something.
Why does it seem that there is a relatively high proportion of U106 in North West Scotland (assuming the data is accurate) which I don't believe was affected much by Saxon migration? Norse or ?
I've posted the Cymru DNA distribution map before, so no point in doing so again.

There's a big spike in an R1a branch associated with Scandinavia in that area as well so part of it may well be connected with longboats.

rms2
02-19-2016, 12:53 AM
Our continental aDNA is well earlier than the definition of Celt or German speaker.

Naturally, but that matters little if, when the language finally developed, it did so in an area that can be clearly defined and which matches the distribution of a particular y haplogroup or haplogroups or if ancient y-dna from a particular culture associated with the language belongs exclusively or almost exclusively to a particular y haplogroup.



The only Halstatt aDNA we have looks like 2 R1b (xL51) and 1 other G sample that fits the common European type. You're referencing 3000 BC period, and I am referring to the 500 BC period or later....

Are you sure those were xL51 or is it that there just weren't reads for L51? I remember the G result.

I said there were exceptions. Looks like that is what the G result would be. Of course, Hallstatt is long after the Bell Beaker period and far from Britain, so it's kind of a red herring as far as this discussion is concerned.



We can banter about who was speaking what 4500 years ago along with Bell Beaker and the P312 findings, but it's rather far fetched to assume the haplogroups remained constant thousands of years later.

Now you have me wondering who said that "haplogroups remained constant thousands of years later". No one that I know of.

What I said, and what I have been saying for a long time, is that y haplogroup distributions, at least some of them, are distinct enough to allow for generalizations to be made about them that are true generally. That is the way generalizations work, and they are effective tools. Without them, we would forever be bogged down in the weeds of specific, individual cases and differences.

It is highly unlikely that those two S497s from Roman York represent some sort of Italo-Celtic clade of U106.

If ancient peoples were thoroughly and irrevocably mixed in their y-dna profiles, population genetics and "deep ancestry" would be pointless and futile. The clines we see in y haplogroup distribution would not exist, nor would there be such obvious correlations between certain y haplogroups and historical ethnolinguistic groups.

Tomenable
03-04-2018, 12:51 AM
It seems that U106 from Unetice culture belonged to the same branch as U106 gladiators from Eboracum?:

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?13555-R1b-U106-from-%DAn%26%23283%3Btice-Culture-2200%961700-BC&p=358196&viewfull=1#post358196


I like that you guys are discussing since I'm related to that Unetice guy as much as Dr. McDonald (he and I are clade-mates... to the S1894 actually!)... you can see the SNPs I share with the Gladiator 6drif-3 in my signature! I think we need more samples in relation to U106... but I think you guys are on the right track overall and I agree with most of it!

Bollox79
03-04-2018, 05:41 AM
It seems that U106 from Unetice culture belonged to the same branch as U106 gladiators from Eboracum?:

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?13555-R1b-U106-from-%DAn%26%23283%3Btice-Culture-2200%961700-BC&p=358196&viewfull=1#post358196

Yes Tomenable,

U106 man from Unetice culture near Prague shares all the SNPs up to the S1900/S1894 level reflected in the SNPs that I share with 6drif-3: R1b-U106-Z381-Z156-Z304/306-DF98-S1911-S1894/S1900... and Unetice man also shares R1b-U106-Z381-Z156-Z304/306 with 3drif-16... but after that 3drif-16 is a member of the other major subgroup of Z304 - called DF96 - brother clade to DF98. Both 6drif-3 and 3drif-16 being among the Gladiators of Eboracum who were tested by Bradley at Trinity in Ireland ;-).

It always made me wonder why 6drif-3 and 3drif-16 had more affinity with a Baltic population than the other Gladiators... maybe there is a clue in there somewhere now that we have one of that branch from Unetice near Prague ;-)? I thought maybe this meant we might find a connection to an area further East... and surprise... Unetice man near Prague!

Finn
03-04-2018, 07:43 AM
Bollox this is my K29 result, pretty shot Baltic too...
I guess that my auDNA is loaded with R1b U106.

NORTHERN EUROPEAN85.8%
Northwest European61.0%
Scandinavian24.8%
EASTERN EUROPEAN14.0%
Baltic14.0%

Bollox79
03-04-2018, 10:09 AM
Bollox this is my K29 result, pretty shot Baltic too...
I guess that my auDNA is loaded with R1b U106.

NORTHERN EUROPEAN85.8%
Northwest European61.0%
Scandinavian24.8%
EASTERN EUROPEAN14.0%
Baltic14.0%

Oh I'm sure you have a lot of U106 ancestors Finn being from Frisia and the North ;-). Where did you take the K29? Is that on Gedmatch like the other calculators?

Finn
03-04-2018, 02:30 PM
Oh I'm sure you have a lot of U106 ancestors Finn being from Frisia and the North ;-). Where did you take the K29? Is that on Gedmatch like the other calculators?

@geneplaza bollox79 it’s made by member Kurd!

Finn
03-04-2018, 02:49 PM
The point is that the oldest U106+ result thus far, the only one from the Bronze Age, did not occur in a likely Italo-Celtic, Bell Beaker context but in a Nordic, Scandinavian, Proto-Germanic context.

Meanwhile, Bell Beaker from Germany, a place where U106 is quite frequent today, is altogether lacking in U106 thus far.

Do you really believe these samples from Roman York are likely to represent an Italo-Celtic clade of U106? Really? Or are you just arguing for fun?

The oldest one in the NW Europe Lilla Beddinge is Rise 98 and is not CW or Battle Axe,
What is still nucleair, Barbed Wire Beaker? Unetice outlier?

The second oldest one in NW Europe is Oostwoud, Unetice/Tumulus/Elp.

I guess the Central Europe- NW Europe Bronze Age connection will be the R1b U106 game changer.......

rms2
03-04-2018, 08:19 PM
The oldest one in the NW Europe Lilla Beddinge is Rise 98 and is not CW or Battle Axe,
What is still nucleair, Barbed Wire Beaker? Unetice outlier?

That's a matter of controversy that has been debated here at Anthrogenica in the past. Sweden, where the Battle Axe cemetery of Lilla Beddinge is located, has the distinction of being one of the European countries completely lacking in Bell Beaker burials and artifacts thus far. So, it's not likely that RISE98 was a Bell Beaker man.

His skeleton was recovered in a Battle Axe cemetery. Some have objected that his burial rite cannot be clearly identified as a Battle Axe burial, but it was not Bell Beaker or Unetice either, the cemetery at Lilla Beddinge is a Battle Axe cemetery, and there is no clear indication that RISE98 did not belong to the Battle Axe culture.

In addition, U106 has not yet been found in Bell Beaker, despite the large and growing number of samples.



The second oldest one in NW Europe is Oostwoud, Unetice/Tumulus/Elp.

I guess the Central Europe- NW Europe Bronze Age connection will be the R1b U106 game changer.......

The second oldest one is I7196 from the Unetice site at Prague-Jinonice in the Czech Republic (2200-1700 BC).

Why would someone resurrect this lame thread after it had mercifully disappeared onto the back pages over two years ago?

Finn
03-04-2018, 08:44 PM
That's a matter of controversy that has been debated here at Anthrogenica in the past. Sweden, where the Battle Axe cemetery of Lilla Beddinge is located, has the distinction of being one of the European countries completely lacking in Bell Beaker burials and artifacts thus far. So, it's not likely that RISE98 was a Bell Beaker man.

His skeleton was recovered in a Battle Axe cemetery. Some have objected that his burial rite cannot be clearly identified as a Battle Axe burial, but it was not Bell Beaker or Unetice either, the cemetery at Lilla Beddinge is a Battle Axe cemetery, and there is no clear indication that RISE98 did not belong to the Battle Axe culture.

In addition, U106 has not yet been found in Bell Beaker, despite the large and growing number of samples.


The second oldest one is I7196 from the Unetice site at Prague-Jinonice in the Czech Republic (2200-1700 BC).

Why would someone resurrect this lame thread after it had mercifully disappeared onto the back pages over two years ago?

Because as you mentioned elsewhere the new sample R1b U106 form Unetice can bring a new perspective on this matter. R1b U106 is most probably promoted by Unetice and it's heir Tumulus.
These cultures and people migrated to NW Europe/South Scandinavia and gave a major push to the flourishing Nordic Bronze Age!

The road was set up by the Bell Beakers and once settled cultures like Unetice and Tumulus "scattered" from Central Europe to NW Europe.

* Was in Rise 98 in this respect a front runner?

Some wrap up:

(thanks to Radboud)
Here is some information about it's grave:

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)
Some additional information from Michal:

It should be indeed quite easy to distinguish between CWC and BB, but only when comparing the typical CWC and BB burials. However, in this specific case of Grave 49 from Lilla Bedinge, all we can securely say about its cultural identity is that this is not a typical Corded Ware (Battle Axe) burial by any standards. In fact, if Allentoft et al. were strongly convinced that this is a typical Battle Axe grave (like they were in the case of another Swedish burial in Viby that turned out to be R1a-M417), they wouldn’t mark this sample as “Battle Axe/Nordic LN” (while classifying the Viby remains simply as “Battle Axe”).

Firstly, Grave 49 included no grave goods that would indicate any strong association with CWC/BA. More specifically, there was no corded pottery at all. Also, quite importantly, there were no battle axes, even though this particular skeleton (RISE98) belonged to a male person. As pointed out by JeanM in her above post, “the only recovered find is a bone needle deposited next to the northern skeleton” (and it should be noted that RISE98 was a southern skeleton).

Secondly, the CWC graves were rarely containing more than two people. By contrast, there are as many as seven people buried in Grave 49, including four adults and three children.



Thirdly, both the CWC and BB people were usually buried lying on their sides, while the skeletons from Grave 49 were found in the sitting crouched position, facing south-west, which hardly resembles a position typical for Corded Ware.

Barbed Wire Beaker Sweden:
Recently also the mixture of this culture with Barbed Wire Beaker culture elements from the west that reached until Sweden in the Late Neolithic, probably ultimately derived from the same Corded Ware stock, has come into the picture.

http://cof.quantumfuturegroup.org/events/5400

The timing of Barbed Wire Beaker Sweden is exactly the timing of Rise 98!!!

* Oostwoud is very clearly Elp/Tumulus.

This means to me that the oldest three R1b U106 are, generally speaking (!!!), connected.....They are examples of the road paved by the Bell Beakers and on which the Unetice and Tumulus travelled....and brought R1b U106.

So in the end may be we don't know yet were exactly R1b U106 is "born" or "muted" but we have very strong indications that Bronze Ages cultures of Central Europe "implanted' it in NW Europe...

All old news? All settled? ;)

rms2
03-04-2018, 10:14 PM
What "Barbed Wire Beaker Sweden"? There is barbed wire type decoration in Sweden in the early Bronze Age, but what evidence is there that it is directly connected to Bell Beaker? As far as I know (and feel free to provide evidence and correct me if I am wrong), there are no Bell Beaker burials or artifacts that have been found in Sweden thus far.

What you quoted about RISE98 really just repeats what I wrote: namely, that his burial rite cannot be clearly identified as a Battle Axe burial, but it was not Bell Beaker or Unetice either. It was in a Battle Axe cemetery, and there is nothing about it that clearly makes a Battle Axe association impossible. RISE98 was probably a commoner and so was not accorded the rites of the elite.

U106 might have been part of Corded Ware, or it might have been in that thin strip of Bell Beaker along the Baltic coast, which thus far has not been subjected to genetic testing. That might also be where we will find DF19, DF99 and L238, as well.

The premise of this thread, which went dormant over two years ago before being resurrected yesterday, had to do with the identification of R1b-S497 as an Italo-Celtic subclade of U106. Does that seem likely?

rms2
03-04-2018, 10:36 PM
. . .

The premise of this thread, which went dormant over two years ago before being resurrected yesterday, had to do with the identification of R1b-S497 as an Italo-Celtic subclade of U106. Does that seem likely?

By the way, when this thread fizzled out over two years ago, in February of 2016, we did not yet have the Olalde et al results. Now U106 is even more conspicuous by its absence from Kurgan Bell Beaker, including British Bell Beaker, and Kurgan Bell Beaker is the likely source of the original Italo-Celtic-speaking peoples.

If U106 was in Bell Beaker, it was probably in Baltic Bell Beaker and became a part of the milieu that contributed to the genesis of Proto-Germanic. I have not followed that recent paper on 6th century barbarians, but didn't it find U106 in Germanic Lombards, who, according to their own tradition, came from Sweden? DF99 was found among them, as well.

In other words, since 2016 the evidence connecting U106 to Germanic-speaking peoples has only increased, and the likelihood that S497 is an Italo-Celtic clade has diminished.

Finn
03-05-2018, 01:15 PM
What "Barbed Wire Beaker Sweden"? There is barbed wire type decoration in Sweden in the early Bronze Age, but what evidence is there that it is directly connected to Bell Beaker? As far as I know (and feel free to provide evidence and correct me if I am wrong), there are no Bell Beaker burials or artifacts that have been found in Sweden thus far.


Barbed Wire Sweden, looks indeed like a CW/BB hybrid. See for a likewise case, a Corded Grave in Twello (same timing as Lilla Beddinge), an example of (quote) ‘Beakerized Corded Ware folk’. So nothing ‘fake’ they really existed.

http://bellbeakerblogger.blogspot.nl/2015/11/interesting-corded-ware-grave.html


U106 might have been part of Corded Ware, or it might have been in that thin strip of Bell Beaker along the Baltic coast, which thus far has not been subjected to genetic testing. That might also be where we will find DF19, DF99 and L238, as well.


That’s very unlikely. R1b U106 is, see the works of Mac Donald, pretty rare in those area’s. And the R1b U106 offshoot there is pretty recent, Ostsiedlung from the Low Lands and Northern Germany during the middle ages.
When they fixed it: they were good watchers of CSI, they left no traces ;)

And it would be illogical because when Bell Beaker Baltic (did they exist?) where the driving force behind R1b U106 how on earth did this have an effect on North Dutch/Elp and Unetice?

The basic assumption of me is that during the Bronze Age the expansion from people and cultures went from Central Europe to NW Europe. That's a kind of basic stream that seems more and more without discussion! It’s the state of the Art in Archeology that Central Europe Bronze age heavily influenced the Nordic Bronze Age (and not the other way around!). The man of the elite had swords modelled central Europe, clean shaven….the women had a clothes Hungarian style and jewellery etc.

http://www.khm.uio.no/english/research/news-and-events/events/conferences/2017/nordic-bronze-age-symposium/book-of-abstracts.pdf

It’s very clear that when the people flowed from Central Europe to the North during the Bronze Age, they also brought their genetics.

Prof Harry Fokkens (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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elp_culture) represented an immigration of Sögel warriors."


We know have Unetice R1b U106, Elp R1b U106 (Oostwoud) and (still in discussion-difficult to label-) ‘Beakerized Corded Ware folk’ R1b U106 (Rise 98).

Unetice, Elp and “Beakerized Corded Ware folk” are connected in people and ideas…..

And ok not 100% representative buth take a map and you see that in the Unetice/Tumulus (Czech/Austria) area’s and in the Elp area’s (Low Lands/ Jutland) are core R1b U106.. How do you think it got there?

https://goo.gl/images/8LyQQL

And that makes them no less Germanic because it’s a Nordic Bronze age phenomenon. In the iron age, during the Germanic ethnogenesis, it was already settled!

Radboud
03-05-2018, 05:20 PM
What you quoted about RISE98 really just repeats what I wrote: namely, that his burial rite cannot be clearly identified as a Battle Axe burial, but it was not Bell Beaker or Unetice either. It was in a Battle Axe cemetery, and there is nothing about it that clearly makes a Battle Axe association impossible. RISE98 was probably a commoner and so was not accorded the rites of the elite.




I am not sure if this is already quoted here, but I have found some more stuff about Lilla Beddinge:





Grave 47 yielded a primary burial of a young woman with deformities
in her arms, lying on her back and with her head in the SSW. Above her grave,
another layer of the boat-like stone construction was built, in the form of a stone
frame. Here, five skulls without mandibles had been placed in the NE part, and on
top of these skulls, a heap of mainly long bones. Due to the strange nature of this
grave, and the deformities in the young woman’s arms, Malmer has interpreted this
grave as possibly indicating human sacrifice (Malmer 2002, 141).

In Grave 49, three
adults crouched in a half-sitting position were buried in a row, all facing the SE.
Between the middle adult and the adult in the SW, two infants had been placed.
64
According to Malmer, this grave may also be interpreted as human sacrifice (Malmer
2002, 141).


With regards to the location of the graves, it is interesting to note that the three
unique graves (Grave 47, 49, 52) are each located on the NE-SW alignment. The
graves on the NW-SE alignment are remarkably similar (particularly Graves 41-43),
which contrasts the variety in the graves on the longer alignment. Therefore, there
seems to be a difference between the Battle Axe graves on each alignment at Lilla
Beddinge; possibly we can even speak of two different groups. Malmer argues that
the alignments may lie along paths or roads; the longer and ‘earlier’ alignment runs
along the top of the moraine hill and parallel to the shore, whereas the shorter and
‘later’ alignment possibly corresponds to the shortest way down to the shore.
According to Malmer, the different alignments probably mark two different
locations of a village that moved periodically (Malmer 2002, 138). While the
difference between the two groups of burials is notable, this does not necessarily
verify Malmer’s hypothesis of moving settlements. Be that as it may, fig. 5.5 shows
that in the close proximity of the cemetery there may indeed have been villages; in
areas of c. 120 x 100 m (fig. 5.5, 3) and c. 80 x 50 (fig. 5.5, 4) scatters of flint flakes
were found (area 3) and axes and black soil (area 4) (Swedish National Heritage
67
Board Riksantikvarieämbetet). It cannot be determined either whether the
alignments mark roads between these settlements or not. In any way, the locations
of the graves do seem to have been known to the prehistoric people in this area,
regardless of whether the graves followed a road or were marked above ground in
another way; there is no overlap between any of the graves


The cemetery of Lilla Beddinge comprises thirteen flat-graves, spread over two
alignments. Three of the graves may be dated to the Late Neolithic. The other ten
were placed during the Battle Axe period, although it is unclear in what sequence;
they may all be contemporaneous. There is a notable difference between the two
alignments; the long, NE-SW alignment consists of nine flat-graves, which show a
larger variety of grave features, grave goods and the positions of those buried than
the other alignment, which runs NW-SE and includes four quite similar graves. This
may attest that the graves on the NW-SE alignment were placed around the same
time, and that the graves on the NE-SW alignment were placed in another period.
The NE-SW alignment follows the orientation of the ground moraine hill, on top of
68
which it is located. The NW-SE alignment on the other hand is oriented from the hill
towards the shore. Although Malmer interprets the duality in the cemetery as the
result of moving settlements, and the alignments as indicating roads, this cannot be
verified

https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/bitstream/handle/1887/52637/BA3-scriptie%20Louise%20Olerud%201530836.pdf?sequence= 3




So, it looks like Grave49 was not really that atypical in this cemetery. Honestly, I have my doubts that Rise98 was from a totally different population. Is there actually evidence for a new people arriving after BAC or even in the early Bronze Age in this area?

Finn
03-05-2018, 07:14 PM
@Radboud, are you also convinced of the connection between the Central European Bronze Age cultures (Unetice,Tumulus) and the Elp culture (Lowlands/NW Germany/Jutland)?

Regarding Lilla Beddinge that's the most difficult case, see this one:

Cultural groups of these regions show a period of evolution starting ca. 1850 BC until their 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.

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

r_r_abril
03-05-2018, 07:35 PM
Anyone knows if new aDNA data from Britain is expected?

Finn
03-05-2018, 07:55 PM
On Eurogenes blog:


Tesmos said...
I ran your model for Rise98, the earliest R1b-U106 we have at the moment.

"distance%=3.3287"

Nordic_LN:RISE98

Yamnaya_Samara,41.8
Barcin_N,28.4
Blatterhole_HG,14.4
Ukraine_Mesolithic,10.4
Koros_HG,5

Interesting results, could Rise98 be some sort of CWC/BBC mix?

My auDNA analyzed by Tomenable some time ago:

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

Radboud
03-05-2018, 08:08 PM
@Radboud, are you also convinced of the connection between the Central European Bronze Age cultures (Unetice,Tumulus) and the Elp culture (Lowlands/NW Germany/Jutland)?


I was already convinced that Elp Culture was influenced by Unetice/Tumulus before our discussion Finn. :)



Regarding Lilla Beddinge that's the most difficult case, see this one:


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

I fail to see the connection between Rise98 and the sample from Oostwoud.


If we take close look at Lilla Beddinge , we can conclude that Grave49 was not that atypical. The archaeologists do not see it as an outlier (did not express doubts atleast) and even consider it as one of the 2 groups in the cemetery. There is also no evidence or any sign of influences from Bell Beakers or even Unetice in this cemetery and the area.

The debate for an association of Rise98 with CWC is far from settled, but we need serious alternative candidates for this ''mysterious population'' based on evidence.

Finn
03-05-2018, 08:28 PM
I fail to see the connection between Rise98 and the sample from Oostwoud.


That's indeed a puzzle but, see previous posting, I'm very related to the Elp culture (no doubt) and at the same time Rise 98 plops up, just like on slightly more distance Unetice.....

Radboud
03-05-2018, 09:07 PM
That's indeed a puzzle but, see previous posting, I'm very related to the Elp culture (no doubt) and at the same time Rise 98 plops up, just like on slightly more distance Unetice.....

I wrote that post on Eurogenes. :P A mixture of CWC/BBC is unlikely though.

Well, it doesn't necessary mean that Rise98 could be derived from Unetice, but it means that they are similar. Rise98 basically clusters with modern populations like Swedes/Norwegians.

Finn
03-06-2018, 12:39 AM
I wrote that post on Eurogenes. :P A mixture of CWC/BBC is unlikely though.

Well, it doesn't necessary mean that Rise98 could be derived from Unetice, but it means that they are similar. Rise98 basically clusters with modern populations like Swedes/Norwegians.

Hahah good posting though! Your alter ego could have made a solution......��

No not necessarily but IMO it does suggest a clustering a connection in auDNA. Of course my ancestors could be partly from a Nordic stream during the big migration......and/or it represents some deeper layer/ clustering obviously bound by R1b U106 kind of folks/ entourage.

rms2
03-06-2018, 12:22 PM
Barbed Wire Sweden, looks indeed like a CW/BB hybrid. See for a likewise case, a Corded Grave in Twello (same timing as Lilla Beddinge), an example of (quote) ‘Beakerized Corded Ware folk’. So nothing ‘fake’ they really existed.

http://bellbeakerblogger.blogspot.nl/2015/11/interesting-corded-ware-grave.html

No, it does not look like a "CW/BB hybrid". No such thing, and, as far as I know, you are the first to ever suggest it. There was some barbed wire decoration on pottery among CW groups in Sweden in the EBA. That's it. No sign of BB people.

That link you posted deals with burials and artifacts from the Netherlands, not from Sweden.




That’s very unlikely. R1b U106 is, see the works of Mac Donald, pretty rare in those area’s. And the R1b U106 offshoot there is pretty recent, Ostsiedlung from the Low Lands and Northern Germany during the middle ages.
When they fixed it: they were good watchers of CSI, they left no traces ;)

It does not really matter whether or not there is a lot of U106 along the Baltic coast now. What matters is where it was back in the 3rd millennium BC. There were Beaker people along the Baltic coast, and they are just about the only Beaker people thus far untouched by Olalde et al. If U106 (and DF19, DF99, L238) was in Bell Beaker, the process of elimination suggests that's where it was.



And it would be illogical because when Bell Beaker Baltic (did they exist?) where the driving force behind R1b U106 how on earth did this have an effect on North Dutch/Elp and Unetice?

The Netherlands is within a relatively easy summer's hike from the Baltic coast. One can walk from Moscow to the English Channel in a single summer. It's also not impossible to get from the shores of the Baltic to the Czech Republic.



The basic assumption of me is that during the Bronze Age the expansion from people and cultures went from Central Europe to NW Europe. That's a kind of basic stream that seems more and more without discussion! It’s the state of the Art in Archeology that Central Europe Bronze age heavily influenced the Nordic Bronze Age (and not the other way around!). The man of the elite had swords modelled central Europe, clean shaven….the women had a clothes Hungarian style and jewellery etc.

http://www.khm.uio.no/english/research/news-and-events/events/conferences/2017/nordic-bronze-age-symposium/book-of-abstracts.pdf

It’s very clear that when the people flowed from Central Europe to the North during the Bronze Age, they also brought their genetics.

Prof Harry Fokkens (1998):


We know have Unetice R1b U106, Elp R1b U106 (Oostwoud) and (still in discussion-difficult to label-) ‘Beakerized Corded Ware folk’ R1b U106 (Rise 98).

Unetice, Elp and “Beakerized Corded Ware folk” are connected in people and ideas…..

And ok not 100% representative buth take a map and you see that in the Unetice/Tumulus (Czech/Austria) area’s and in the Elp area’s (Low Lands/ Jutland) are core R1b U106.. How do you think it got there?

https://goo.gl/images/8LyQQL

And that makes them no less Germanic because it’s a Nordic Bronze age phenomenon. In the iron age, during the Germanic ethnogenesis, it was already settled!

There is no evidence that RISE98 there in Bell Beaker-less Sweden belonged to some kind of "Beakerized Corded Ware folk", none at all. He wasn't buried with Bell Beaker pottery or the usual BB package, and he was not buried on his side in the BB crouched posture. Add to that the fact that Sweden itself has no Bell Beaker burials or artifacts anywhere.

U106 or its immediate ancestor must have come from the steppe to Sweden, perhaps with Corded Ware, but it got there certainly by the time RISE98 died and was buried, ~2300 BC.

And he is the earliest U106 we have thus far, with I7196 from the Czech Republic and the Unetice culture in second place.

Finn
03-06-2018, 08:24 PM
No, it does not look like a "CW/BB hybrid". No such thing, and, as far as I know, you are the first to ever suggest it. There was some barbed wire decoration on pottery among CW groups in Sweden in the EBA. That's it. No sign of BB people.
That link you posted deals with burials and artifacts from the Netherlands, not from Sweden.


I know the aim was to show that in other places in NW Europe did know CW/BB mixtures....why not in Sweden.


It does not really matter whether or not there is a lot of U106 along the Baltic coast now. What matters is where it was back in the 3rd millennium BC. There were Beaker people along the Baltic coast, and they are just about the only Beaker people thus far untouched by Olalde et al. If U106 (and DF19, DF99, L238) was in Bell Beaker, the process of elimination suggests that's where it was.

Right but until now Baltic Beakers are R1b U106 tabula rasa! So up until now pretty wishful thinking.....



The Netherlands is within a relatively easy summer's hike from the Baltic coast. One can walk from Moscow to the English Channel in a single summer. It's also not impossible to get from the shores of the Baltic to the Czech Republic.


Ok, but a little bit an American watching Europe....;)


There is no evidence that RISE98 there in Bell Beaker-less Sweden belonged to some kind of "Beakerized Corded Ware folk", none at all. He wasn't buried with Bell Beaker pottery or the usual BB package, and he was not buried on his side in the BB crouched posture. Add to that the fact that Sweden itself has no Bell Beaker burials or artifacts anywhere.

Ok thats' your turn but in the end it still remains undefined....


U106 or its immediate ancestor must have come from the steppe to Sweden, perhaps with Corded Ware, but it got there certainly by the time RISE98 died and was buried, ~2300 BC.

And he is the earliest U106 we have thus far, with I7196 from the Czech Republic and the Unetice culture in second place.

Yes agree....

What would be your explanation to, the story behind, my high R1b-U!06 "ancient" au DNA admixture, as deeply rooted North Dutch man. With partly roots in Bronze Age populations (Elp culture) mostly from my more inland North Dutch mother's side, and with some shot Nordic from the migration age, more from my fathers coastal North Dutch side?

My "R1b U106" auDNA "Ancient":
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

rms2
03-06-2018, 09:40 PM
I'm on the train home and using my cellphone, so I can't make the neatest answer, but in response to "Why not Sweden?" for a CW/BB hybrid, I would simply point out that there was no BB there for CW to hybridize with.

We don't know whether or not U106 was in Baltic Bell Beaker, because thus far we don't have any Baltic Bell Beaker dna test results. But if U106 was in Bell Beaker, it must have been there or possibly in Danish or Norwegian Bell Beaker, because those are really the only likely places untested by Olalde et al.

Finn
03-07-2018, 02:32 PM
I'm on the train home and using my cellphone, so I can't make the neatest answer, but in response to "Why not Sweden?" for a CW/BB hybrid, I would simply point out that there was no BB there for CW to hybridize with.

We don't know whether or not U106 was in Baltic Bell Beaker, because thus far we don't have any Baltic Bell Beaker dna test results. But if U106 was in Bell Beaker, it must have been there or possibly in Danish or Norwegian Bell Beaker, because those are really the only likely places untested by Olalde et al.

Short reply, no B.B. in Sweden? Yesterday you mentioned the distances. One thing is sure: standing on the beaches close to Lila Beddinge you can almost see Denmark, enough B.B,. and at that time the vessels were for certain able to peddle between Denmark and coastal Scania!!!

https://sv.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilla_Beddinge

Finn
03-07-2018, 07:11 PM
BB in Scania Part II


In summary, it might be said that Danish flint daggers and Bell Beaker pottery do display social identity. However, they do so in different ways. The daggers dis- play male rather than female identities, especially in the case of those daggers of supreme size and quality, which were most likely reserved for men. The pottery has a close connection with domestic life and hence is associated with an unconscious display of communal and personal identities. When compared to what prevails in Bell Beaker core areas, the Danish version of the Bell Beaker phenomenon appears far more domestic and integrated in a general Late Neolithic context. In the future, further investigations of early Late Neolithic environments in eastern Denmark and Scania will be necessary in order to reveal further aspects of the indigenous Late Neolithic material culture and the relationship to the Bell Beaker phenomenon.


http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.857.3839&rep=rep1&type=pdf


Through a systematic analysis of the settlements at Fosie IV Nils Björhem/Ulf Säfvestad (1989) have considerably improved on our understanding of Late Neolithic settlement size and circulation patterns in western Scania. This work also draws together Scani-an settlement data published, for instance, by Strömberg (1971 a; 1991/92). Björhem has synthesised the evidence in a zone model of the human occupation of the cultural landscape (in Rudebeck et al. 2001, 37)(cf. fig. 3). Jenny Holm, Eva Olsson and Eva Weiler have recently made a synopsis as regards east central and western Sweden (Holm et al. 1997; also Weiler 1994). Per Lekberg (2000) has initiated a contextual study of the often neglected, but very large group of simple shaft-hole axes. They are analysed from a life-cycle point of view and as evidence of an agricultural expansion during the Late Neolithic Period. Per Karsten’s (1994) inten- sive study of sacrificial rituals connected to Neolithic flint items in Scania should also be mentioned, since it includes the Late Neolithic Period.



Late Neolithic pottery is lacking in ornamentation, variability and sophistication (e.g. Schiellerup 1991, 48 ff. with references), notably 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 horizonital 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 re- mains to be examined.


One might well ask whether western Jutland provided a link between the Lower Rhine area and northern Jutland.

http://www.jungsteinsite.uni-kiel.de/pdf/2005_vandkilde_high.pdf

I guess archeology give more hints to "Barbed Wire Beaker" or if you prefer LN/EBA Denmark-Scania, with on the background Rhenish/Dutch Beaker than to Baltic Beaker....

Finn
03-07-2018, 08:38 PM
LN-EBA part III, IMO there a relationship with this:
http://eurogenes.blogspot.nl/2015/06/genetic-substructures-among-late.html

rms2
03-07-2018, 08:57 PM
None of what you posted says Bell Beaker has been found in Scania. I've looked for mention of Bell Beaker in Sweden and have never found it. If you find any real evidence of BB burials or artifacts (not mere possible cultural or artistic influence), let us know.

Finn
03-07-2018, 09:05 PM
I wrote that post on Eurogenes. :P A mixture of CWC/BBC is unlikely though.

Well, it doesn't necessary mean that Rise98 could be derived from Unetice, but it means that they are similar. Rise98 basically clusters with modern populations like Swedes/Norwegians.

Barbed Wire a picture of the spread of Barbed Wire LN/EBA culture and R1b U106......

https://www.mupload.nl/img/iad7k0c4xl.png

https://www.mupload.nl/img/4zwajcbpele1k.png

@Radboud for the North I guess you have a point, Unetice more southern? May be it were the LN-EBA Barbed Wire Beaker that spread R1b U106 in NNW Europe and Elp was it's heir.....(so before the Unetice influence!)

Finn
03-07-2018, 09:11 PM
None of what you posted says Bell Beaker has been found in Scania. I've looked for mention of Bell Beaker in Sweden and have never found it. If you find any real evidence of BB burials or artifacts (not mere possible cultural or artistic influence), let us know.

It's derivate does. I don't want to discuss about labels/names. But in one way or another a Beaker offshoot did. Punkt strich as the germans say ;)

rms2
03-07-2018, 09:17 PM
It's derivate does. I don't want to discuss about labels/names. But in one way or another a Beaker offshoot did. Punkt strich as the germans say ;)

No, it did not. There was some barbed wire style decoration in Bronze Age Sweden but no actual Barbed Wire Beaker culture derived from Bell Beaker.

If I'm wrong, show me, but I have never seen any evidence of BB in Sweden.

rms2
03-07-2018, 09:18 PM
It's derivate does. I don't want to discuss about labels/names. But in one way or another a Beaker offshoot did. Punkt strich as the germans say ;)

No, it did not. There was some barbed wire style decoration in Bronze Age Sweden, but no actual Barbed Wire Beaker culture derived from Bell Beaker.

If I'm wrong, show me, but I have never seen any evidence of BB in Sweden.

Finn
03-07-2018, 09:32 PM
As said i don't want to discuss about names/labels. That's cultural bound. Anglos-Saxons always talk about Beakers and in continental Europe it's more differentiated.

The publications say there was an influence of a Beaker offshoot of course in pottery and such like.

The Eurogenes link does suggest also a genetic one.

I guess you don't want to see it. Because you do suggest a link with Baltic Beakers, where there is no evidence not in archeology not in genetics.

I don't say I have THE solution but the case Barbed Wire Beakers influenced (cultural+genetics) Scandinavia is stronger than Baltic Beakers influenced (cultural+genetics) Scandinavia.

But time will tell further.....

uintah106
03-08-2018, 02:35 AM
Doesn't R1A retreat from Denmark in modern times?As opposed to its IE dominance in corded ware? That implies a southern intruder. How could both Z284 and U106 expand so completely differently in northern europe, Z284 is absent In iron age west germanic tribes. R U106 was probably expanding in the areas around scandinavia prior to the NBA(unetice).

Radboud
03-08-2018, 07:57 AM
Barbed Wire a picture of the spread of Barbed Wire LN/EBA culture and R1b U106......

https://www.mupload.nl/img/iad7k0c4xl.png

https://www.mupload.nl/img/4zwajcbpele1k.png

@Radboud for the North I guess you have a point, Unetice more southern? May be it were the LN-EBA Barbed Wire Beaker that spread R1b U106 in NNW Europe and Elp was it's heir.....(so before the Unetice influence!)

What is the second map about?

Anyway, you posted some very interesting publications. However, I do not see evidence for a connection to the Barbed Wire Beakers in The Netherlands. As far as I know, archaeologists do not see the 'Barbed Wire' package in Sweden.

Vandkilde2005 actually suggests that there is population continuity during the Late Neolithic period in the other regions of Denmark.


Today it is becoming widely accepted that a material culture
of Bell Beaker derivation characterised northwestern Denmark in
the late third millennium BC, whilst material culture in central and
eastern Denmark remained relatively Beaker-free and thus more
indigenously Late Neolithic.



Locally produced fi ne-ware Beaker pottery and a series of Beaker-affi
liated objects and cultural traits characterise settlements
and burials in northern Jutland during the early part of the Late
Neolithic (fi g. 6–9). New formal concepts were adopted from Beaker groups at the lower Rhine around 2350 BC and subsequently translated into a local cultural language. This blend of Beaker Culture
and Late Neolithic Culture sets the region apart from the remainder
of Denmark, which in the main only adopted the Late Neolithic
part whereas the Beaker part was largely rejected as a way
of presenting cultural identity.

At this point, an assocation with Barbed Ware Beakers is very unlikely to me:

- RISE98 is from a Battle Axe cemetery that continued in use into the Nordic Late Neolithic.
- There is population continuity during the Nordic Late Neolithic in this area as there is no evidence for a new people arriving after BAC or even in the early Bronze Age.
- RISE98's grave called Grave49 turns out not to be that atypical in Lilla Beddinge, the archealogists do not question it's assocation with BAC.
- The age of Rise98 is 2275-2032 BC, the ancestral population of Rise98 had plenty of time to mix with the local population in the area, so this could explain it's similarity to Bronze Age populations and modern Scandinavians.

Finn
03-08-2018, 08:17 AM
Doesn't R1A retreat from Denmark in modern times?As opposed to its corded ware IE dominance in corded ware? That implies a southern intruder. How could both Z284 and U106 expand so completely differently in northern europe, Z284 is absent In iron age west germanic tribes. R U106 was probably expanding in the areas around scandinavia prior to the NBA(unetice).

Indeed!! I guess I was in the initial timing of the spread of R1B U106 a little to late.....(as Radboud already suggested).

Those maps ^^^^^ of Barbed Wire and R1b U106 are insightful, in NW Europe the Barbed Wire people played a part in the spread of R1B U106.

That’s the nicest thing of a forum through discussion things get, somewhat, sharper!

Finn
03-08-2018, 08:41 AM
What is the second map about?

Anyway, you posted some very interesting publications. However, I do not see evidence for a connection to the Barbed Wire Beakers in The Netherlands. As far as I know, archaeologists do not see the 'Barbed Wire' package in Sweden.

Vandkilde2005 actually suggests that there is population continuity during the Late Neolithic period in the other regions of Denmark.






At this point, an assocation with Barbed Ware Beakers is very unlikely to me:

- RISE98 is from a Battle Axe cemetery that continued in use into the Nordic Late Neolithic.
- There is population continuity during the Nordic Late Neolithic in this area as there is no evidence for a new people arriving after BAC or even in the early Bronze Age.
- RISE98's grave called Grave49 turns out not to be that atypical in Lilla Beddinge, the archealogists do not question it's assocation with BAC.
- The age of Rise98 is 2275-2032 BC, the ancestral population of Rise98 had plenty of time to mix with the local population in the area, so this could explain the similarity to Bronze Age populations and modern Scandinavians.


The second picture is a map done by Tolan about R1b U106. See the spread or R1b U106 the core of it equals the spread of the Barbed Wire culture.....

The time range of Rise 98 is lager see your own previous postings.

Why it's excluded that Barbed Wire Low Lands and NW Germany with connections to Denmark has an connection with Lilla Beddinge, especially seen the coastal position? BBW were typical seafarers/traders see the connections in Norway.
Barbed Wire Beakers give likewise BB/CW 'hybrid' images....

In the end, with all the pro's en cons, I'm most convinced that Barbed Wire Beaker and the spread of R1b U106 are connected....but of course time will tell!

Radboud
03-08-2018, 09:04 AM
The time range of Rise 98 is lager see your own previous postings.

Why it's excluded that Barbed Wire Low Lands and NW Germany with connections to Denmark has an connection with Lilla Beddinge, especially seen the coastal position? BBW were typical seafarerers/traders see the connections in Norway.
Barbed Wire Beakers give likewise BB/CW 'hybrid' images....

In the end, with all the pro's en cons, I'm most convinced that Barbed Wire Beaker and the spread of R1b U106 are connected....but of course time will tell!



I used the date of age from the Allentoft et al 2015 study. Do you mean this quote? It was the date for the northern skeleton, I remember that Rise98 is the southern skeleton in grave49. To bad we do not have more samples from this cemetery.


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).

What you mentioned is not impossible of course, what we really need is like a CWC version of the Bell Beaker behemoth study, samples from Jutish & Baltic Bell Beakers and at last but not least: Some Barbed Wire Beakers to give some answers. ;)

Finn
03-08-2018, 09:18 AM
I used the date of age from the Allentoft et al 2015 study. Do you mean this quote? It was the date for the northern skeleton, I remember that Rise98 is the southern skeleton in grave49. To bad we do not have more samples from this cemetery.



What you mentioned is not impossible of course, what we really need is like a CWC version of the Bell Beaker behemoth study, samples from Jutish & Baltic Bell Beakers and at last but not least: Some Barbed Wire Beakers to give some answers. ;)

Thanks and indeed that's exactly the quote!!

And a sample of Barbed Wire, see the passage about Oostwoud:


“I've taken a look at the Dutch site (Oostwoud). The burials from the Bell Beaker phase were all P312, and at least a few of them were related. It seems at a later date an other tumulus was erected very close to the Bell Beaker ones, but it cannot be classified to a culture by lack of material. Strangely enough the burial room was intact but empty. There were two secondary burials in the tumulus, a man and a woman, the man being the U106. Looking at the location and the time this is either very late Barbed wire BB, or early Elp culture. That last culture used Tumuli, and was very alike to examples in Northern Germany and Scandinavia. I think it's possible the second tumulus marks the arrival of a new group on a possibly already abandoned site, staking their claim by erecting a tumulus next to the existing BB tumulus. ”

Finn
03-08-2018, 03:06 PM
So in the end:

- we have a spread of Barbed Wire Beaker (2000-1800 BC) that's the same area as the nowadays core area of R1b U106
- the sample in Oostwoud ca. 1881-1646 BC is late Barbed Wire/ Elp culture
- the sample Lilla Beddinge 2580–1980 BC, still undefinied, at that time there was in cultural sense influence of the Barbed Wire Beakers in Southwest Sweden.
- my personal auDNA is close connected with Rise 98 Lilla Beddinge and is rooted in Barbed Wire Beaker!

Strong indicators rms/ Radboud!

Finn
03-08-2018, 08:09 PM
Even mentioned on wikipedia:

The Swedish-Norwegian Battle Axe culture, or the Boat Axe culture, appeared ca. 2800 BCE and is known from about 3000 graves from Scania to Uppland and Trøndelag. The "battle-axes" were primarily a status object. There are strong continuities in stone craft traditions, and very little evidence of any type of full-scale migration, least of all a violent one. The old ways were discontinued as the corresponding cultures on the continent changed, and the farmers living in Scandinavia took part in those changes since they belonged to the same network. Settlements on small, separate farmsteads without any defensive protection is also a strong argument against the people living there being aggressors. Recently also the mixture of this culture with Barbed Wire Beaker culture elements from the west that reached until Sweden in the Late Neolithic, probably ultimately derived from the same Corded Ware stock, has come into the picture.[37]

rms2
03-08-2018, 09:07 PM
What's the source of that last sentence, Finn? Wikipedia is a bit shaky, since anyone with the time and an agenda can edit the articles to suit his fancy.

But if that's true, you might be onto something. I have never heard it put quite that strongly, however. Usually, it's spoken of as the adoption of some barbed wire decoration by EBA CW groups.

Radboud
03-08-2018, 09:18 PM
What's the source of that last sentence, Finn? Wikipedia is a bit shaky, since anyone with the time and an agenda can edit the articles to suit his fancy.

But if that's true, you might be onto something. I have never heard it put quite that strongly, however. Usually, it's spoken of as the adoption of some barbed wire decoration by EBA CW groups.

According to Jean M, the statement is confusing and speculative. There is more stuff about this matter in the link below on page 14/15/16 about the barbed wire type of decoration in Sweden. ( If you are interested)


I have removed that confusing and speculative statement from the Wikipedia entry. It cites Vandkilde 2005, but she does not say anything of the kind. As far as she is concerned, Bell Beaker only arrived in Jutland, not the rest of Scandinavia. See her diagram:



The 'barbed wire' type of decoration on some of the crude Late Neolithic pottery in Sweden does not make the Late Neolithic there the same as the 'Barbed Wire Culture' of the Netherlands. Archaeologists identify a culture from a complete 'package' of features which occur together. Vandkilke 2005 does not see the 'Barbed Wire' package in Sweden.

The Barbed Wire Culture of the Netherlands has a 'package' derived from Bell Beaker and follows on from it into the Early Bronze Age. It 'shows a continuation of burial, housing and hoarding tradition'. See The Oxford Handbook of the European Bronze Age page 566.

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?11220-The-Frisians&p=302581&viewfull=1#post302581

Finn
03-09-2018, 07:00 AM
What's the source of that last sentence, Finn? Wikipedia is a bit shaky, since anyone with the time and an agenda can edit the articles to suit his fancy.

But if that's true, you might be onto something. I have never heard it put quite that strongly, however. Usually, it's spoken of as the adoption of some barbed wire decoration by EBA CW groups.

The source is Helle Vandkilde (2005) one of the most prominents connoisseurs of the LN/EBA of Scandinavia! http://pure.au.dk/portal/en/persons/helle-vandkilde(3436ee39-dd2e-4438-b87c-8fbb9f4efffc).html

Finn
03-09-2018, 07:09 AM
According to Jean M, the statement is confusing and speculative. There is more stuff about this matter in the link below on page 14/15/16 about the barbed wire type of decoration in Sweden. ( If you are interested)



https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?11220-The-Frisians&p=302581&viewfull=1#post302581

Read ^^^ and judge by yourself!

"extra service' The relevant quote of Helle Vandkilde (2005):


Late Neolithic pottery is lacking in ornamentation, variability and sophistication (e.g. Schiellerup 1991, 48 ff. with references), nota- bly 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 chrono- logical 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.

Confusing!? ;)

Finn
03-09-2018, 07:44 AM
- RISE98 is from a Battle Axe cemetery that continued in use into the Nordic Late Neolithic.
.

Last weekend I was in Borger/Drenthe, with many TRB Hunebed/dolmen there, in this dolmen they buried also in the Bronze Age, that makes the Bronze Age people not TRB!

Radboud
03-09-2018, 08:07 AM
Read ^^^ and judge by yourself!

"extra service' The relevant quote of Helle Vandkilde (2005):

.

Confusing!? ;)

You are using the wrong quote. This was not a quote from Vandkilde, but someone else wrote this on Wikipedia.


The Swedish-Norwegian Battle Axe culture, or the Boat Axe culture, appeared ca. 2800 BCE and is known from about 3000 graves from Scania to Uppland and Trøndelag. The "battle-axes" were primarily a status object. There are strong continuities in stone craft traditions, and very little evidence of any type of full-scale migration, least of all a violent one. The old ways were discontinued as the corresponding cultures on the continent changed, and the farmers living in Scandinavia took part in those changes since they belonged to the same network. Settlements on small, separate farmsteads without any defensive protection is also a strong argument against the people living there being aggressors. Recently also the mixture of this culture with Barbed Wire Beaker culture elements from the west that reached until Sweden in the Late Neolithic, probably ultimately derived from the same Corded Ware stock, has come into the picture.[37]

There is some interesting stuff in the Frisians topic. Here is an another quote from Jean M.



European archaeologists do recognise that during the final stage of Bell Beaker in a number of countries, the stamped decoration resembling barbed wire appears on Bell Beaker pottery. The pottery of the Scandinavian Late Neolithic is crude and generally undecorated, but where it has a decoration, it is generally the 'barbed wire' stamp. So it is logical to deduce that the origin of this decoration in the Scandinavian Late Neolithic lies in Final Bell Beaker. But the source does not have to be the Barbed Wire Culture of the Netherlands. It might be, for all I know. But it is not a given.


https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?11220-The-Frisians/page15


Last weekend I was in Borger/Drenthe, with many TRB Hunebed/dolmen there, in this dolmen they buried also in the Bronze Age, that makes the Bronze Age people not TRB!

That argument you quoted is just one of the points I raise for population continuity, I also gave several other points why there is population continuity in that area. All in all, there is no evidence of new people arriving in that region.

Btw, the date 2580–1980 BC is of the northern skeleton in Grave49. Rise98 was the southern skeleton of Grave49 and has the age of 2275-2032 BC according to Allentoft et al.

Finn
03-09-2018, 08:32 AM
You are using the wrong quote. This was not a quote from Vandkilde, but someone else wrote this on Wikipedia.



There is some interesting stuff in the Frisians topic. Here is an another quote from Jean M.



https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?11220-The-Frisians/page15



That argument you quoted is just one of the points I raise for population continuity, I also gave several other points why there is population continuity in that area. All in all, there is no evidence of new people arriving in that region.

Btw, the date 2580–1980 BC is of the northern skeleton in Grave49. Rise98 was the southern skeleton of Grave49 and has the age of 2275-2032 BC according to Allentoft et al.

Look at the source of note 37 indeed!!! As an historian I know how to use notes and quotes on a responsible way!

Indee crude pottery the Germans use the word Kummerkeramik for this, and that’s an equivalent for Elp!

When there was population continuity then you discuss with Finn a ‘pure’ TRB man! ;) that’s gross.....as in England CW and B.B. rolled over the North Dutch TRB....

Radboud
03-09-2018, 08:47 AM
Look at the source of note 37 indeed!!! As an historian I know how to use notes and quotes on a responsible way!


Can you provide me a link to the specific wikipedia page? I cannot even find this quote there. Was it removed?

Finn
03-09-2018, 09:12 AM
Can you provide me a link to the specific wikipedia page? I cannot even find this quote there. Was it removed?

Radboud I’m not responsible for the wiki page....I quote one with VanKilde as a source. Honest. No need for explanation.

Bring it back on topic. VanKilde stated that Barbed Wire did influence the Lilla Beddinge area. And my interpretation: may be Lilla Beddinge is at the most suitable for these influences because of its situation near the coast in front of Denmark. It’s not somewhere in the inlands!

Radboud
03-09-2018, 10:19 AM
Radboud I’m not responsible for the wiki page....I quote one with VanKilde as a source. Honest. No need for explanation.

The problem is that VanKilde did not mention this statement as explained by Jean M. Everyone could write a statement on Wikipedia with a source, but it doesn't mean the author(s) of this source actually mentioned it.



Bring it back on topic. VanKilde stated that Barbed Wire did influence the Lilla Beddinge area. And my interpretation: may be Lilla Beddinge is at the most suitable for these influences because of its situation near the coast in front of Denmark. It’s not somewhere in the inlands!

There is nothing in Lilla Beddinge that connects it to Bell Beaker or Barbed Wire Beaker. See my previous posts about the cemetery etc.

Archaeologists do not place Barbed Wire Beakers in Sweden. Barbed wire decoration =/= Barbed Wire Beaker. It doesn't necessary need to be of Dutch Barbed Wire Beaker origin. And even if the Late Neolithic people from Sweden somehow imitated barbed wire decoration from Jutish Bell Beakers, then this doesn't require any large migration. And as we know, there is no evidence of new people arriving in Nordic LN Sweden. There seems to be also population continuity in Nordic LN Middle/Eastern Denmark.

Diagram is here:

https://anthrogenica.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=19453&d=1509178347

Finn
03-09-2018, 12:09 PM
The problem is that VanKilde did not mention this statement as explained by Jean M. Everyone could write a statement on Wikipedia with a source, but it doesn't mean the author(s) of this source actually mentioned it.



There is nothing in Lilla Beddinge that connects it to Bell Beaker or Barbed Wire Beaker. See my previous posts about the cemetery etc.

Archaeologists do not place Barbed Wire Beakers in Sweden. Barbed wire decoration =/= Barbed Wire Beaker. It doesn't necessary need to be of Dutch Barbed Wire Beaker origin. And even if the Late Neolithic people from Sweden somehow imitated barbed wire decoration from Jutish Bell Beakers, then this doesn't require any large migration. And as we know, there is no evidence of new people arriving in Nordic LN Sweden. There seems to be also population continuity in Nordic LN Middle/Eastern Denmark.

Diagram is here:

https://anthrogenica.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=19453&d=1509178347


I don’t speak about necessity’s but about possibility’s.

A few remarks:
- as you can see the labels in timing are different between West Europe and Southern Scandinavia, but in timing there is overlap;
- the remark of VanKilde about Barbed Wire in Sweden doesn’t look like a slip of the tongue, she is a notable archeologist, those types usual don’t give it a shot, but states this based on research;
- even as TRB Dutch isn’t TRB Sweden, isn’t Barbed Wire Dutch, Barbed Wire Sweden, but that doesn’t rule out that there was a intermingling of cultures, in stronger words Barbed Wire Pottery, with same kind of patterns, give at least the impression of cultural exchange;
- than is the question does cultural exchange mean people exchange, no not always, but as more often pots go with people and people go with pots;
- when we see that Oostwoud late Barbed Wire/ Elp and Lilla Beddinge during Barbed Wire Beaker share the same genetic label R1b U106 than we can assume that with the pots also some people exchanged;
- and even more someone like me who is rooted in the core area of R1b U106 has a auDNA profile that comes most close to Rise 98 Lilla Beddinge,
- than it’s NO exact proof but at least an option that there is a genetic connection between the samples Barbed Wire/ Elp Oostwoud, LN EBA Lilla Beddinge and even nowadays North Dutch au DNA of Finn.

So a possibility no necessity, but still a possibly that has with the available samples and archeological knowledge the best cards! Are there better cards please put them on the table.....

rms2
03-09-2018, 12:20 PM
. . .
- the remark of VanKilde about Barbed Wire in Sweden doesn’t look like a slip of the tongue, she is a notable archeologist, those types usual don’t give it a shot, but state this based on research . . .

But Radboud just pointed out that Van Kilde did not actually say there was Barbed Wire Beaker in Sweden, only that there was some barbed wire decoration in Sweden. I thought that Wikipedia quote sounded strange, since I have never before heard of any type of Bell Beaker in Sweden.

Finn
03-09-2018, 12:23 PM
Rms, see my reply to Radboud.....

Radboud
03-09-2018, 01:19 PM
But Radboud just pointed out that Van Kilde did not actually say there was Barbed Wire Beaker in Sweden, only that there was some barbed wire decoration in Sweden. I thought that Wikipedia quote sounded strange, since I have never before heard of any type of Bell Beaker in Sweden.

I think the person that wrote this (deleted) statement on Wikipedia probably misinterpreted Van Kilde, the source of barbed wire decoration is unknown in Sweden.



Recently also the mixture of this culture with Barbed Wire Beaker culture elements from the west that reached until Sweden in the Late Neolithic, probably ultimately derived from the same Corded Ware stock, has come into the picture.[37]


I don’t speak about necessity’s but about possibility’s.

A few remarks:

- the remark of VanKilde about Barbed Wire in Sweden doesn’t look like a slip of the tongue, she is a notable archeologist, those types usual don’t give it a shot, but states this based on research;


Which remark do you mean? VanKilde only stated there was some barbed wire decoration in Sweden, but the quote above me has not been mentioned by VanKilde at all.




- and even more someone like me who is rooted in the core area of R1b U106 has a auDNA profile that comes most close to Rise 98 Lilla Beddinge,
- than it’s NO exact proof but at least an option that there is a genetic connection between the samples Barbed Wire/ Elp Oostwoud, LN EBA Lilla Beddinge and even nowadays North Dutch au DNA of Finn.


Strictly speaking, Rise 98 does actually cluster with Swedes and Norwegians, not with the North-Dutch.

Finn
03-09-2018, 03:23 PM
I think the person that wrote this (deleted) statement on Wikipedia probably misinterpreted Van Kilde, the source of barbed wire decoration is unknown in Sweden.

Which remark do you mean? VanKilde only stated there was some barbed wire decoration in Sweden, but the quote above me has not been mentioned by VanKilde at all.

Strictly speaking, Rise 98 does actually cluster with Swedes and Norwegians, not with the North-Dutch.

This is 'the one and only original' Vandkilde (2005) quote:


Late Neolithic pottery is lacking in ornamentation, variability and sophistication (e.g. Schiellerup 1991, 48 ff. with references), nota- bly 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 chrono- logical 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



My interpretation:
- even as TRB Dutch isn’t TRB Sweden, isn’t Barbed Wire Dutch, Barbed Wire Sweden, but that doesn’t rule out that there was a intermingling of cultures, in stronger words Barbed Wire Pottery, with same kind of patterns, give at least the impression of cultural exchange;
- than is the question does cultural exchange mean people exchange, no not always, but as more often pots go with people and people go with pots;


Rise 98 doe correspondence with my auDNA and I'am certainly deeply rooted in Northern Netherlands....and I will bet that there are more North Dutch that show affinity with it. On Gedmatch most of them show in K15 an Irish affinity some a WestNorwegian/ Danish one, I aspect with the last ones especially affinity with Rise 98.

Radboud
03-09-2018, 03:51 PM
This is 'the one and only original' Vandkilde (2005) quote:


Yup she did, but she did not mention anything about the Barbed Wire Culture as there is no such thing in Sweden. The source of barbed wire decoration is unknown in Sweden.




Rise 98 doe correspondence with my auDNA and I'am certainly deeply rooted in Northern Netherlands....and I will bet that there are more North Dutch that show affinity with it. On Gedmatch most of them show in K15 an Irish affinity some a WestNorwegian/ Danish one, I aspect with the last ones especially affinity with Rise 98.

Rise 98 looks basically like a modern Scandinavian. Rise98 does cluster with Swedes & Norwegians as shown on this PCA:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9o3EYTdM8lQb0ljSzM2dkdCOWs/view

Finn
03-09-2018, 04:07 PM
Yup she did, but she did not mention anything about the Barbed Wire Culture as there is no such thing in Sweden. The source of barbed wire decoration is unknown in Sweden.

Rise 98 looks basically like a modern Scandinavian. Rise98 does cluster with Swedes & Norwegians as shown on this PCA:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9o3EYTdM8lQb0ljSzM2dkdCOWs/view

The barbed wire culture in the Low Lands and NW Germany is also based on barbed wire decoration.....
Do you think they (in Sweden) developed it in isolation?
Yep, and some North Dutch too.

(My auDNA analyzed by Tomenable some time ago:

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)

rms2
03-10-2018, 01:52 AM
Honestly, I don't think your own personal autosomal dna results are that relevant, and barbed wire decoration is not the same as migration and the presence of an entire culture.

uintah106
03-10-2018, 03:32 AM
Yes, but then there is this from eurogenes in regard to Rise 98 " I may have discovered an interesting pattern in Allentoft et al. data. It seems that during the Late/Neolithic/Bronze age, Scandinavia was populated by two somewhat different populations: one characterized by Y Chromosome haplogroup R1b and a genome-wide genetic structure typical of present day Northwestern Europeans, and another by Y chromosome haplogroup R1a and a relatively more eastern genome-wide genetic profile."

rms2
03-10-2018, 04:35 AM
Except that RISE98 resembles modern Swedes autosomally, not modern NW Europeans.

Finn
03-10-2018, 07:17 AM
Except that RISE98 resembles modern Swedes autosomally, not modern NW Europeans.

Rise98 in K15,

1 North_Swedish @ 6.244024
2 Swedish @ 7.746688
3 Norwegian @ 7.899050
4 West_Norwegian @ 9.606829
5 North_Dutch @ 12.601281
6 Danish @ 12.767492
7 Southwest_Finnish @ 13.350434
8 North_German @ 14.449794
9 Finnish @ 14.644314
10 West_German @ 14.918084

There is 4000 years between Rise 98 and now, especially in the auDNA this ment of course certain differences, I guess some modern North Dutch have meanwhile ancestors form below the Rhine, this lowered some results, the lines of my ancestors are all above the Rhine....I guess that's why I personally come closer.

By the way rms where are the Balts in this respect??? 20 Estonian @ 21.353285

uintah106 has the right quote thanks,, there was in LN/EBA an upcoming element in Southern Scandinavia, R1b U106. They came from the barbed wire beaker core area, also up until now R1b U106 core area, and went to (Southern) Scandinavia, they influenced/brought some pottery too....

Radboud
03-10-2018, 07:37 AM
Yes, but then there is this from eurogenes in regard to Rise 98 " I may have discovered an interesting pattern in Allentoft et al. data. It seems that during the Late/Neolithic/Bronze age, Scandinavia was populated by two somewhat different populations: one characterized by Y Chromosome haplogroup R1b and a genome-wide genetic structure typical of present day Northwestern Europeans, and another by Y chromosome haplogroup R1a and a relatively more eastern genome-wide genetic profile."

But it's not fair to compare samples from different timelines is it? Especially the comparison between the ancient Danes. The R1b dudes had plenty of time to mix with the local population.

The R1b Swede RISE98 dates to 2275-2032 BC.

The R1a Swede RISE94 dates to 2621-2472 BC

The R1b Dane RISE276 dates to 794-547 BC.

The R1a Dane RISE61 dates to 2650-2300 BC

Btw, the CWC R1b RISE1 dates to 2865-2578 BC and is from Oblaczkowo Poland, the sample looks quite Eastern European on this PCA:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9o3EYTdM8lQWTBuOUxWRXFQc2M/view?usp=sharing

Btw, here is the relevant article:

http://eurogenes.blogspot.nl/2015/06/genetic-substructures-among-late.html

Finn
03-10-2018, 08:23 AM
But it's not fair to compare samples from different timelines is it? Especially the comparison between the ancient Danes. The R1b dudes had plenty of time to mix with the local population.

The R1b Swede RISE98 dates to 2275-2032 BC.

The R1a Swede RISE94 dates to 2621-2472 BC

The R1b Dane RISE276 dates to 794-547 BC.

The R1a Dane RISE61 dates to 2650-2300 BC

Btw, the CWC R1b RISE1 dates to 2865-2578 BC and is from Oblaczkowo Poland, the sample looks quite Eastern European on this PCA:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9o3EYTdM8lQWTBuOUxWRXFQc2M/view?usp=sharing

Btw, here is the relevant article:

http://eurogenes.blogspot.nl/2015/06/genetic-substructures-among-late.html

IMO only RISE276 is some kind of outlier in the timeline, the rest is closer to LN/EBA.

Have you seen Rise 98 in K15? 20 Estonian @ 21.353285

Radboud
03-10-2018, 09:00 AM
IMO only RISE276 is some kind of outlier in the timeline, the rest is closer to LN/EBA.

Have you seen Rise 98 in K15? 20 Estonian @ 21.353285

Imo, it should be fair if for example Rise98 had rougly the same date as Rise94. Rise94 looks like a ''pure'' CWC sample, but it's date is earlier. Rise98's ancestral population could have easily mixed with the local population. I need to check some stuff about Rise98's affinities to Neolithic populations like Gökhem/TRB(Swedish)-like local farmers.

I have seen the results of Rise98 yes. To me, Rise98 has most affinities to Swedes and Norwegians. Second are Danes/Frisians.

Finn
03-10-2018, 09:14 AM
Imo, it should be fair if for example Rise98 had rougly the same date as Rise94. Rise94 looks like a ''pure'' CWC sample, but it's date is earlier. Rise98's ancestral population could have easily mixed with the local population. I need to check some stuff about Rise98's affinities to Neolithic populations like Gökhem(Swedish)-like local farmers.

I have seen the results of Rise98 yes. To me, Rise98 has most affinities to Swedes and Norwegians. Second are Danes/Frisians.

Indeed there is most likely a mixture with previous local population.

If you take this in perspective and zoom out, you see a NW Europe-Scandinavian connection......

So seen from Lilla Beddinge the wind blowed from the Southwest and not from the Northeast ;)

Finn
03-10-2018, 09:20 AM
@Radboud the point is that the (North) Dutch-Scandinavian most probably has two impulses, one flux in the LN/EBA from NW Europe (North Dutch/NW Germany) into the Scandinavian room. That's the LN/EBA R1b component Davidski talked about. And a reflux from Scandinavia to NW Europe during the migration Age.

I guess that you can this difference in coastal/Frisian North Dutch and inland North Dutch (Drenthe). Both are related to the flux and reflux. But the reflux in the coastal North Dutch was most probably bigger. But that's a matter of fine tuning....

Finn
03-10-2018, 10:26 AM
Interesting quote:


A post by Dr McDonald about the U106 CWC.
"The date of his burial, and his location are hard to explain in our current understanding of U106's history. His burial date and his lack of downstream SNPs suggests he is from a very early U106 branch. Care must be taken not to overinterpret this statement, he may belong to a presently-minor or now-extinct U106 clade. Further testing of Swedish U106 with unusual STRs would be encouraged to try to find his descendants.

His origin is perhaps best explained by the messy conglomeration of the Bell Beaker and Corded Ware cultures that occurred in western Europe during this period. The fusion of these two groups is described in Allentoft et al. as follows: "These new cultures experienced a rapid expansion that transformed society in much the same way as the Corded Ware and Single Grave Culture had transformed temperate Europe c. 300 years earlier. However, in Central and Northern Europe, the Unetice Culture [2300-1800 BC] represented the first miners and metallurgists, who introduced a commodity based metal economy, implying a rather high degree of mobility within some groups."

We know from other burials in Allentoft et al. that there were a number of R1b (L51+ L11+) men within Bell Beaker society in south-eastern Germany. We can probably presume there were U106+ mixed among them. These individuals will have taken the bronze working abilities of the Bell beaker society elsewhere, including Sweden. Again from Allentoft: "They were travelling artisans and probably well-received because of their skills, but they were also a demographic force looking for new places to settle."

http://forums.ftdna.com/showthread.php?p=412864&langid=12

Radboud
03-10-2018, 10:32 AM
@Radboud the point is that the (North) Dutch-Scandinavian most probably has two impulses, one flux in the LN/EBA from NW Europe (North Dutch/NW Germany) into the Scandinavian room. That's the LN/EBA R1b component Davidski talked about. And a reflux from Scandinavia to NW Europe during the migration Age.

I guess that you can this difference in coastal/Frisian North Dutch and inland North Dutch (Drenthe). Both are related to the flux and reflux. But the reflux in the coastal North Dutch was most probably bigger. But that's a matter of fine tuning....

The question remains which impulse is responsible for R1b-U106, but let's take a look at Rise98 again.

Rise98 basically looks like a modern Swede. The question is why and how it did receive the extra ''western'' stuff like WHG/EEF? We should not look to much in modern populations, but we should take a closer look at it's deeper origins. For example, a CWC-population mixing with the local population scenario is possible and I am not discarding your scenario either. I need to do some digging before I comment on this further.

Btw, here is another PCA of RISE175, the haplogroup is I,(I1a?) the date 1395-1132 BC and the sample is from Abekas(Abbekås?) in Sweden.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9o3EYTdM8lQWUNIeHV2QWpOSDA/view

Finn
03-10-2018, 12:04 PM
The question remains which impulse is responsible for R1b-U106, but let's take a look at Rise98 again.

Rise98 basically looks like a modern Swede. The question is why and how it did receive the extra ''western'' stuff like WHG/EEF? We should not look to much in modern populations, but we should take a closer look at it's deeper origins. For example, a CWC-population mixing with the local population scenario is possible and I am not discarding your scenario either. I need to do some digging before I comment on this further.

Btw, here is another PCA of RISE175, the haplogroup is I,(I1a?) the date 1395-1132 BC and the sample is from Abekas(Abbekås?) in Sweden.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9o3EYTdM8lQWUNIeHV2QWpOSDA/view

And he looks like a Northern Swedish, I guess a less mixed population......

Yep and Barbed Wire North Dutch/NW Germany has most probably already a kind of Single Grave component the "messy configuration" of Mac Donald.....

This is an intriguing remark of David:


Of course, I'm well aware that the Y-haplogroup most closely associated with the Corded Ware expansion is R1a, and in particular its R1a-M417 subclade, and that Beaker males with steppe ancestry almost exclusively belong to Y-haplogroup R1b, especially its R1b-P312 subclade. But this means very little for now, because considering the patchy sampling of ancient remains from Eneolithic/Bronze Age Europe, it's still possible that, for instance, these Beakers descend from an as yet unsampled subset of the Corded Ware population rich in R1b.


http://eurogenes.blogspot.nl/2018/03/on-origin-of-steppe-ancestry-in-beaker.html

Finn
03-10-2018, 12:12 PM
The question remains which impulse is responsible for R1b-U106,


I guess both impulses, R1b U106 is old enough for the LN/EBA upstream from NNW Europe to Scandinavia.....and R1b U106 came back during the Nordic expansion in the migration time.

Finn
03-10-2018, 12:33 PM
an add from VanKilde (2005)


Flint daggers and various other things and materials enriched with symbolic meanings, culture and knowledge were exchanged over northern central Europe and Scandinavia, but were differentially received locally. The specific cultural and social situation in northern Jutland – associated with a marked concentration of Beaker elements – can best be understood as dependent on a series of internal conditions such as rich sources of high quality flint as well as on interaction with a wider Late Neolithic realm in southern Scandinavia and with late Bell Beaker and affiliated groups in western Europe.

I guess this was the amalgam LN/EBA in NNW Europe and southern Scandinavia......

Finn
03-10-2018, 01:09 PM
The question remains which impulse is responsible for R1b-U106,

Beside the NNW Europe- Southern Scandinavia connection there is still the option that people from Central Europe influenced both area's' and that R1b U106 is a Central European line close connected to these EBA pioniers!

See this discussion about the Kromsdorf people, with R1b U106, I guess this stays a possibility that people from this area infiltrated likewise in the Northern Plain and Southern Scandinavia....
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?818-How-and-where-did-R1b-get-into-the-Bell-Beaker-folks

Finn
03-10-2018, 05:44 PM
The question remains which impulse is responsible for R1b-U106, but let's take a look at Rise98 again.

Rise98 basically looks like a modern Swede. The question is why and how it did receive the extra ''western'' stuff like WHG/EEF? We should not look to much in modern populations, but we should take a closer look at it's deeper origins. For example, a CWC-population mixing with the local population scenario is possible and I am not discarding your scenario either. I need to do some digging before I comment on this further.

Btw, here is another PCA of RISE175, the haplogroup is I,(I1a?) the date 1395-1132 BC and the sample is from Abekas(Abbekås?) in Sweden.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9o3EYTdM8lQWUNIeHV2QWpOSDA/view

In the end I think the Eastern Bell Beakers in the range between Czech (Later on Unetice 2000-1700 BC recent sample) and Middle Germany (Kromsdorf 2600 BC sample) brought R1b U106 in the Bell Beaker network. From there it went into the Northern European plain to the shores of the North Sea (Oostwoud 1800 BC) and from there it went northwards into Southern Scandinavia (Lilla Bedinge 2000 BC).

And may be the origin of R1b U106 is eventually from some kind of CW group, in Northern Europe CW and BB often were hybrid or blurred.

rms2
03-10-2018, 06:12 PM
Both the Kromsdorf Bell Beaker samples were U106-. They actually tested them for U106, but not for P312, which is probably what they were.

I am not saying U106 wasn't in Bell Beaker somewhere, but thus far we have no real evidence that it was. That's pretty amazing, considering how many BB samples Olalde et al tested from across Europe.

They didn't test any from the Baltic coast, however, which leads me to suspect that, if U106 was in Bell Beaker, that's where it was. (They also didn't test any from Morocco, but I doubt U106 was there.)

I find the old categories, e.g., "Eastern Bell Beaker", unsatisfactory because they were based on the old out-of-Iberia paradigm. It seems to me all Kurgan Bell Beaker was of eastern origin.

Radboud
03-10-2018, 07:00 PM
In the end I think the Eastern Bell Beakers in the range between Czech (Later on Unetice 2000-1700 BC recent sample) and Middle Germany (Kromsdorf 2600 BC sample) brought R1b U106 in the Bell Beaker network. From there it went into the Northern European plain to the shores of the North Sea (Oostwoud 1800 BC) and from there it went northwards into Southern Scandinavia (Lilla Bedinge 2000 BC).

And may be the origin of R1b U106 is eventually from some kind of CW group, in Northern Europe CW and BB often were hybrid or blurred.

At this moment, the scenario that (atleast an amount) of R1b-U106 was rather brought by a CWC group to Scandinavia and was part of the Battle-Axe/Single Grave culture is more likely to me. But let's agree to disagree on this one. ;)


Both the Kromsdorf Bell Beaker samples were U106-. They actually tested them for U106, but not for P312, which is probably what they were.

I am not saying U106 wasn't in Bell Beaker somewhere, but thus far we have no real evidence that it was. That's pretty amazing, considering how many BB samples Olalde et al tested from across Europe.

They didn't test any from the Baltic coast, however, which leads me to suspect that, if U106 was in Bell Beaker, that's where it was. (They also didn't test any from Morocco, but I doubt U106 was there.)

I find the old categories, e.g., "Eastern Bell Beaker", unsatisfactory because they were based on the old out-of-Iberia paradigm. It seems to me all Kurgan Bell Beaker was of eastern origin.


I am not sure who created this map, so I do not know if it's accurate or not. But according to this map, there were Oder & Vistula Bell Beaker settlements near the Baltic Sea. Perhaps it can be found there?

https://evolutionistx.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/772af1cecb0e5fe3f4512830d5b999c6.jpg

Finn
03-10-2018, 07:44 PM
Both the Kromsdorf Bell Beaker samples were U106-. They actually tested them for U106, but not for P312, which is probably what they were.

I am not saying U106 wasn't in Bell Beaker somewhere, but thus far we have no real evidence that it was. That's pretty amazing, considering how many BB samples Olalde et al tested from across Europe.

They didn't test any from the Baltic coast, however, which leads me to suspect that, if U106 was in Bell Beaker, that's where it was. (They also didn't test any from Morocco, but I doubt U106 was there.)

I find the old categories, e.g., "Eastern Bell Beaker", unsatisfactory because they were based on the old out-of-Iberia paradigm. It seems to me all Kurgan Bell Beaker was of eastern origin.

Agree!

But look at the Rise98 context, that conforms the Middle German/ Czech Bell Beaker/Unetice connection.
MDLP K11

1 Unetice_EBA @ 3.008374
2 Nordic_IA @ 3.582424
3 Nordic_LBA @ 3.928257
4 Nordic_LN @ 4.502528
5 British_AngloSaxon @ 5.399951
6 Corded_Ware_Proto_Unetice_Poland @ 5.870515
7 Bell_Beaker_Czech @ 6.590644
8 Nordic_MN_B @ 6.909945
9 BenzigerodeHeimburg_LN @ 7.470246

Using 2 populations approximation:
1 50% Nordic_LBA +50% Unetice_EBA @ 1.648179

Using 3 populations approximation:
1 50% Nordic_LBA +25% Unetice_EBA +25% Unetice_EBA @ 1.648179

Using 4 populations approximation:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 Hungary_BA + Nordic_LBA + Poltavka_MBA_outlier + Poltavka_MBA_outlier @ 1.413170
2 Hungary_BA + Nordic_LBA + Poltavka_MBA_outlier + Sintashta_MBA @ 1.420375
3 Nordic_LBA + Nordic_LBA + Unetice_EBA + Unetice_EBA @ 1.648179


Eurasia K14
Using 1 population approximation:
1 Nordic_IA @ 3.257667
2 RISE_baSca @ 5.643455
3 Bell_Beaker_LN2 @ 9.142363
4 Bell_Beaker_BA1 @ 10.086013
5 Benzigerode_LN3 @ 14.013459
6 Unetice_BA1 @ 14.307736
7 RISE_baSca @ 14.934830
8 Bell_Beaker_LN3 @ 16.154613
9 Nordic_LN @ 16.336258
10 Sintashta_BA @ 18.740992

Using 2 populations approximation:
1 50% Corded_Ware_LN3 +50% Hungarian_BA8 @ 2.957106

Using 3 populations approximation:
1 50% Bell_Beaker_LN6 +25% Corded_Ware_BA6 +25% Nordic_LN @ 2.756286

Using 4 populations approximation:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++
1 Corded_Ware_BA4 + Hungarian_BA8 + Nordic_LN + Nordic_IA @ 1.643687
2 Bell_Beaker_LN2 + Corded_Ware_LN3 + Hungarian_BA8 + RISE_baSca @ 1.717742
3 HungaryGamba_BA1 + Andronovo_BA4 + Hungarian_BA8 + RISE_baSca @ 1.794358

puntDNAL K12

1 Bell_Beaker_Germany_I1549 @ 2.685340
2 BenzigerodeHeimburg_LN_I0059 @ 3.935024
3 Unetice_EBA_I0117 @ 5.897697
4 Halberstadt_LBA_I0099 @ 6.287739
5 Nordic_LN_SG_RISE97 @ 7.731425
6 Alberstedt_LN_I0118 @ 9.134867
7 Corded_Ware_Estonia_RISE00 @ 9.167401
8 Potapovka_I0419 @ 9.675108
9 Bell_Beaker_Czech_RISE569 @ 10.023282
10 Srubnaya_I0232 @ 13.412409

Using 2 populations approximation:
1 50% Bell_Beaker_Germany_I1549 +50% Bell_Beaker_Germany_I1549 @ 2.685340

Using 3 populations approximation:
1 50% Bell_Beaker_Germany_I1549 +25% Hungary_BA_I1502 +25% Srubnaya_I0232 @ 2.430326

rms2
03-10-2018, 07:55 PM
I think the autosomal tools at Gedmatch have to be taken with a large grain of salt, especially when they don't all produce the same result. I'm not saying they aren't accurate, but the interpretation is the thing, and they are based on what is currently available for comparison.

That first MDLP run, for example, with Unetice_EBA followed by no less than three Nordic categories, could mean that U106 got into Unetice from the North, which is probably what happened.

Finn
03-10-2018, 07:59 PM
At this moment, the scenario that (atleast an amount) of R1b-U106 was rather brought by a CWC group to Scandinavia and was part of the Battle-Axe/Single Grave culture is more likely to me. But let's agree to disagree on this one. ;)




I am not sure who created this map, so I do not know if it's accurate or not. But according to this map, there were Oder & Vistula Bell Beaker settlements near the Baltic Sea. Perhaps it can be found there?

https://evolutionistx.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/772af1cecb0e5fe3f4512830d5b999c6.jpg

I guess no "pure CW" (no strong auDNA signals) but Single Grave in Bell Beaker disguise? ;)

I really don't understand why Radboud and RMS2 can assume that's in Baltic Beakers. Because every suggestion that there is a connection with BB/Unetice is laid under a binocular. Baltic Beaker seems in this respect the unknown, so safe to speculate, joker card:)

Finn
03-10-2018, 08:09 PM
I think the autosomal tools at Gedmatch have to be taken with a large grain of salt, especially when they don't all produce the same result. I'm not saying they aren't accurate, but the interpretation is the thing, and they are based on what is currently available for comparison.

That first MDLP run, for example, with Unetice_EBA followed by no less than three Nordic categories, could mean that U106 got into Unetice from the North, which is probably what happened.

Of course I take them with salt. But with a birds eye it says Unetice and Bell Beaker Central Europe....

I consider in MDLP lost of Nordic no surplices because it's ancient vs ancient so Rise 98 was in this respect under equals....the Unetice on number one is more obvious!

What underlines your from North to South theory? In the Lowlands and NW Germany there is a founder effect.....sole due to the Germanic invasion? And when this was the case why was there already in 1800 BC (EBA) in Oostwoud a R1b U106?

In LN/EBA Southern Scandinavia was a receiving area not a migrating area!

rms2
03-10-2018, 08:13 PM
I am guessing U106 was in Baltic Bell Beaker - maybe! - because Olalde et al didn't test BB from there. If I've lost my keys and I have checked every inch of my house except behind my dresser and haven't found them, what is left? That's right: I need to look behind the dresser.

Olalde et al looked at BB pretty much all over Europe except the Baltic coast and did not find U106. So, what's left? Look behind the dresser, man!

;)

Finn
03-10-2018, 08:22 PM
I am guessing U106 was in Baltic Bell Beaker - maybe! - because Olalde et al didn't test BB from there. If I've lost my keys and I have checked every inch of my house except behind my dresser and haven't found them, what is left? That's right: I need to look behind the dresser.

Olalde et al looked at BB pretty much all over Europe except the Baltic coast and did not find U106. So, what's left? Look behind the dresser, man!

;)


I'm an expert in losing my keys, mostly they are in the expected in staid of unexpected places.....often a matter of overlooking!

The hints to Middle German/Czech Bell Beaker are very obvious, but still looking no no this can't be the case because the subranche of the subbranche is slightly different, so let's look further....the keys lay in front of your eyes rms2!:D

rms2
03-10-2018, 08:26 PM
I'm an expert in losing my keys in mostly they are in te expected in staid of unexpected places.....often a matter of overlooking!

The hints to Middle German/Czech Bell Beaker are very obvious, but still looking no no this can't be the case because the subranche of the subrache is slightly different, so let's look further....the keys lay in front of your eyes rms2!:D

Except we have lots of German and Czech BB results and no U106. In fact, our oldest U106 to date is from Sweden, and he was not a Bell Beaker man.

When U106 starts to pop up farther south in Europe it's in post-BB contexts.

We have not looked at Baltic BB, and Sweden is on the Baltic.

Then again, maybe U106 wasn't in Bell Beaker at all. Maybe it was mixed in with R1a in Corded Ware. Who knows?

jdean
03-10-2018, 08:41 PM
I am guessing U106 was in Baltic Bell Beaker - maybe! - because Olalde et al didn't test BB from there. If I've lost my keys and I have checked every inch of my house except behind my dresser and haven't found them, what is left? That's right: I need to look behind the dresser.

Olalde et al looked at BB pretty much all over Europe except the Baltic coast and did not find U106. So, what's left? Look behind the dresser, man!

;)

Of course the other thing that hasn't surfaced yet is continental L21, be quite funny if it turned up in the same place.

rms2
03-10-2018, 08:46 PM
Of course the other thing that hasn't surfaced yet is continental L21, be quite funny if it turned up in the same place.

Good point. I was hoping Olalde et al would get the Amesbury Archer's genome, which would be the same thing as continental results, but no such luck.

I think L21 on the Continent will be found in Switzerland, southern Germany, or somewhere along the Rhine. Notice the Sion results did not turn out to be U152 or the ubiquitous L2.

jdean
03-10-2018, 08:50 PM
Good point. I was hoping Olalde et al would get the Amesbury Archer's genome, which would be the same thing as continental results, but no such luck.

I think L21 on the Continent will be found in Switzerland, southern Germany, or somewhere along the Rhine. Notice the Sion results did not turn out to be U152 or the ubiquitous L2.

I was hoping the isotopic data might come to our aid there but I think the stuff they reported in the supp info was to do with diet ?

rms2
03-10-2018, 08:52 PM
I was hoping the isotopic data might come to our aid there but I think the stuff they reported in the supp info was to do with diet ?

I never could figure that out.

Finn
03-10-2018, 08:53 PM
Except we have lots of German and Czech BB results and no U106. In fact, our oldest U106 to date is from Sweden, and he was not a Bell Beaker man.

When U106 starts to pop up farther south in Europe it's in post-BB contexts.

We have not looked at Baltic BB, and Sweden is on the Baltic.

Then again, maybe U106 wasn't in Bell Beaker at all. Maybe it was mixed in with R1a in Corded Ware. Who knows?

Are you sure that Kromsdorf is no R1b U106 (or pre line)? What about Unetice R1b U106 (see your own posting)? What about Oostwoud R1b U106?

The key can be a less black or white approach to Beaker or CW....more and more analysis consider this too strict, the reality could by "hybrid" or blurred.....

Davidski:
"it's still possible that, for instance, these Beakers descend from an as yet unsampled subset of the Corded Ware population rich in R1b"

Or like in this German paper, about the dialectic relationship between CW and BB:
Ralph Großmann
Das dialektische Verhältnis von Schnurkeramik und Glockenbecher zwischen Rhein und Saale
280 S., zahlr. (tls farb.) Abb., 30 cm. Pp
Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie 287

You have a lot of experience in this matter does your intuition, based on the knowledge we now know, that the Baltics deliver the solution?

rms2
03-10-2018, 08:56 PM
Yes, I remember when the Kromsdorf BB results first came out. I think the researchers expected them to be U106 because they were unearthed in a U106-rich region of Germany, so they tested them for U106. Surprise! They were ancestral (negative) for U106. My guess is they were both P312+ like most Bell Beaker men thus far.

Look at BB from the Netherlands. Nederland is the very heart of U106 today, yet the Bell Beaker men from there were all P312+.

U106 was someplace else back then.

rms2
03-10-2018, 08:58 PM
. . .

You have a lot of experience in this matter does your intuition, based on the knowledge we now know, that the Baltics deliver the solution?

Honestly, I don't know. But I suspect Baltic Bell Beaker may be the answer.

jdean
03-10-2018, 08:59 PM
I never could figure that out.

Nor me but when I tried googling for the isotopes they reported I only came up with stuff to do with marine diet.

rms2
03-10-2018, 09:05 PM
Dr. Olalde never answered my email asking which Amesbury BB men had continental isotope results. Maybe he was too busy, or maybe he didn't know. That's the first of my emails he hasn't answered. Guess I wore out my welcome.

Finn
03-10-2018, 09:09 PM
Yes, I remember when the Kromsdorf BB results first came out. I think the researchers expected them to be U106 because they were unearthed in a U106-rich region of Germany, so they tested them for U106. Surprise! They were ancestral (negative) for U106. My guess is they were both P312+ like most Bell Beaker men thus far.

Look at BB from the Netherlands. Nederland is the very heart of U106 today, yet the Bell Beaker men from there were all P312+.

U106 was someplace else back then.

Hold on North Dutch Oostwoud about 1800 BC is clearly R1b U106! So it was already there.....

rms2
03-10-2018, 09:17 PM
Hold on North Dutch Oostwoud about 1800 BC is clearly R1b U106! So it was already there.....

You know better. That U106 was not Bell Beaker. There was nothing about it that was Bell Beaker, from the burial posture to the lack of BB artifacts to the late date.

That mound was a late intrusion, probably from the north and east. It actually serves as proof that U106 came from elsewhere.

Finn
03-10-2018, 09:32 PM
Yep it were Barbed Wire Beakers or Early Elp culture....

"I 've taken a look at the Dutch site (Oostwoud). The burials from the Bell Beaker phase were all P312, and at least a few of them were related. It seems at a later date an other tumulus was erected very close to the Bell Beaker ones, but it cannot be classified to a culture by lack of material. Strangely enough the burial room was intact but empty. There were two secondary burials in the tumulus, a man and a woman, the man being the U106. Looking at the location and the time this is either very late Barbed wire BB, or early Elp culture. That last culture used Tumuli, and was very alike to examples in Northern Germany and Scandinavia."

Again rooted in middle Germany (Elbe/Saale)/Unetice at the time of Oostwoud these groups were settling in nowadays Lower Saxony, so this could be a widening of their territory.....

Finn
03-10-2018, 09:41 PM
So both Oostwoud and Lilla Beddinge seem to have genetic and cultural ties and rooted in these Bell Beaker/Unetice area.

So when the Bell Beaker of the Netherlands were R1b P312, the following waves in the Bronze Age (Unetice/ Tumulus/Urnfield) from central Europe brought R1b U106......like we saw in Oostwoud.

rms2
03-10-2018, 09:54 PM
So both Oostwoud and Lilla Beddinge seem to have genetic and cultural ties and rooted in these Bell Beaker/Unetice area.

So when the Bell Beaker of the Netherlands were R1b P312, the following waves in the Bronze Age (Unetice/ Tumulus/Urnfield) from central Europe brought R1b U106......like we saw in Oostwoud.

No, there's no evidence of that. The oldest U106 thus far is RISE98 from Sweden. So, it doesn't look like it was rooted in the "Bell Beaker/Unetice area". It looks like it was rooted in Sweden, i.e., the Baltic area.

alan
03-11-2018, 12:35 AM
No, there's no evidence of that. The oldest U106 thus far is RISE98 from Sweden. So, it doesn't look like it was rooted in the "Bell Beaker/Unetice area". It looks like it was rooted in Sweden, i.e., the Baltic area.

And U106 stayed and became part of the Nordic Bronze Age too. U106 and P312's common ancestor was 2800BC according to yfull which often seems to give date about 10% too young and so c.3100BC seems a reasonable guess. That predates CW by several centuries and also predates the spilling of Yamnaya into or Europe. So the 2 branches of L151 could have separated long before on the steppes.

MitchellSince1893
03-11-2018, 12:56 AM
And U106 stayed and became part of the Nordic Bronze Age too. U106 and P312's common ancestor was 2800BC according to yfull which often seems to give date about 10% too young and so c.3100BC seems a reasonable guess. That predates CW by several centuries and also predates the spilling of Yamnaya into or Europe. So the 2 branches of L151 could have separated long before on the steppes.

Iain McDonald's published date for P312 is 3155 BC (his newer unpublished date is ~75 years younger) and his U106 date is 3022 BC. So around ~3100 BC for their shared ancestor
http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~mcdonald/genetics/p312/table.html
http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~mcdonald/genetics/table.html

uintah106
03-11-2018, 02:14 AM
No, there's no evidence of that. The oldest U106 thus far is RISE98 from Sweden. So, it doesn't look like it was rooted in the "Bell Beaker/Unetice area". It looks like it was rooted in Sweden, i.e., the Baltic area.

And he was an outlier, his snps indicate that. The main body of U106 was still south and came north later in intervals, most were probably just to the south,east and west and were part of the germanic 'ethnogenesis' in place.

rms2
03-11-2018, 02:23 AM
And he was an outlier, his snps indicate that. The main body of U106 was still south and came north later in intervals, most were probably just to the south,east and west and were part of the germanic 'ethnogenesis' in place.

What makes you say that? There is no evidence of that. Olalde et al collected Bell Beaker samples from all over Europe, but not a single U106 showed up.

Maybe you're right, but if one looks at things in chronological order the way they currently stand, it's 1) RISE98 in Sweden; 2) I7196 in Unetice in the Czech Republic; and 3) I4070 from Oostwoud in the Netherlands.

Unless by "just to the south" you mean along the Baltic coast.

uintah106
03-11-2018, 02:39 AM
Why is R1a not an Anglo-Saxon marker? Its the premier Norse marker. Its absent in Anglo-Saxons. In Corded Ware R1a dominates everywhere, West Germanic tribes have no Z284.

uintah106
03-11-2018, 02:40 AM
I think most of U106 lay south

uintah106
03-11-2018, 03:12 AM
I think its a potent circumstantial case. R U106 is a late comer to the north. And gave rise to the Nordic Bronze age, via Unetice.

Radboud
03-11-2018, 07:35 AM
Agree!

But look at the Rise98 context, that conforms the Middle German/ Czech Bell Beaker/Unetice connection.
MDLP K11

1 Unetice_EBA @ 3.008374
2 Nordic_IA @ 3.582424
3 Nordic_LBA @ 3.928257
4 Nordic_LN @ 4.502528
5 British_AngloSaxon @ 5.399951
6 Corded_Ware_Proto_Unetice_Poland @ 5.870515
7 Bell_Beaker_Czech @ 6.590644
8 Nordic_MN_B @ 6.909945
9 BenzigerodeHeimburg_LN @ 7.470246

Using 2 populations approximation:
1 50% Nordic_LBA +50% Unetice_EBA @ 1.648179

Using 3 populations approximation:
1 50% Nordic_LBA +25% Unetice_EBA +25% Unetice_EBA @ 1.648179

Using 4 populations approximation:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 Hungary_BA + Nordic_LBA + Poltavka_MBA_outlier + Poltavka_MBA_outlier @ 1.413170
2 Hungary_BA + Nordic_LBA + Poltavka_MBA_outlier + Sintashta_MBA @ 1.420375
3 Nordic_LBA + Nordic_LBA + Unetice_EBA + Unetice_EBA @ 1.648179


Eurasia K14
Using 1 population approximation:
1 Nordic_IA @ 3.257667
2 RISE_baSca @ 5.643455
3 Bell_Beaker_LN2 @ 9.142363
4 Bell_Beaker_BA1 @ 10.086013
5 Benzigerode_LN3 @ 14.013459
6 Unetice_BA1 @ 14.307736
7 RISE_baSca @ 14.934830
8 Bell_Beaker_LN3 @ 16.154613
9 Nordic_LN @ 16.336258
10 Sintashta_BA @ 18.740992

Using 2 populations approximation:
1 50% Corded_Ware_LN3 +50% Hungarian_BA8 @ 2.957106

Using 3 populations approximation:
1 50% Bell_Beaker_LN6 +25% Corded_Ware_BA6 +25% Nordic_LN @ 2.756286

Using 4 populations approximation:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++
1 Corded_Ware_BA4 + Hungarian_BA8 + Nordic_LN + Nordic_IA @ 1.643687
2 Bell_Beaker_LN2 + Corded_Ware_LN3 + Hungarian_BA8 + RISE_baSca @ 1.717742
3 HungaryGamba_BA1 + Andronovo_BA4 + Hungarian_BA8 + RISE_baSca @ 1.794358

puntDNAL K12

1 Bell_Beaker_Germany_I1549 @ 2.685340
2 BenzigerodeHeimburg_LN_I0059 @ 3.935024
3 Unetice_EBA_I0117 @ 5.897697
4 Halberstadt_LBA_I0099 @ 6.287739
5 Nordic_LN_SG_RISE97 @ 7.731425
6 Alberstedt_LN_I0118 @ 9.134867
7 Corded_Ware_Estonia_RISE00 @ 9.167401
8 Potapovka_I0419 @ 9.675108
9 Bell_Beaker_Czech_RISE569 @ 10.023282
10 Srubnaya_I0232 @ 13.412409

Using 2 populations approximation:
1 50% Bell_Beaker_Germany_I1549 +50% Bell_Beaker_Germany_I1549 @ 2.685340

Using 3 populations approximation:
1 50% Bell_Beaker_Germany_I1549 +25% Hungary_BA_I1502 +25% Srubnaya_I0232 @ 2.430326

We should take caution with these Gedmatch results. As you can see, Rise98 is similar to other Bronze Age populations,(although the results vary) but it doesn't necessary mean that there is a connection with the Bell Beaker/Unetice area. There are also other explanations for this similarity. This requires other methods.

Finn
03-11-2018, 09:22 AM
We should take caution with these Gedmatch results. As you can see, Rise98 is similar to other Bronze Age populations,(although the results vary) but it doesn't necessary mean that there is a connection with the Bell Beaker/Unetice area. There are also other explanations for this similarity. This requires other methods.


Of course! I use it only through the eyelashes......not literally. It get's more clear when you compare it with Rise 94, Viby Sweden, 2000 BC.

Through the eyelashes you get some different atmosphere: Corded/Sintashta

Beakers and Unetice are not fully absent but mostly on the sideline.

Sinstatha showed up in Rise 98 only once and very on distance.

So the context is different between Rise94 and Rise98.

MDLP K11

Using 1 population approximation:
1 Nordic_IA @ 8.630749
2 Nordic_LBA @ 8.927814
3 Nordic_LN @ 11.361347
4 Unetice_MBA @ 11.508416
5 BenzigerodeHeimburg_LN @ 12.640008
6 Unetice_EBA @ 12.864289
7 British_IronAge @ 13.202676
8 Corded_Ware_Proto_Unetice_Poland @ 13.466818
9 Nordic_BattleAxe @ 14.045580
10 Nordic_MN_B @ 14.262506

Using 2 populations approximation:
1 50% Nordic_IA +50% Nordic_IA @ 8.630749


Using 3 populations approximation:
1 50% Hungary_BA +25% Kotias_CHG +25% Luxembourg_Mesolithic @ 4.070094

Using 4 populations approximation:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 BerryAuBac_Mesolithic + Iberia_Chalcolithic + Kotias_CHG + Nordic_IA @ 1.318554
2 Bichon_Azillian + Iberia_Chalcolithic + Kotias_CHG + Nordic_IA @ 1.318554


Eurasia K14

Using 1 population approximation:
1 Corded_Ware_BA7 @ 4.030106
2 Sintashta_BA @ 5.617558
3 Corded_Ware_LN1 @ 8.443893
4 Sintashta_BA @ 12.709638
5 Bell_Beaker_BA7 @ 13.679229
6 Nordic_BA3 @ 14.645936
7 Nordic_LBA @ 15.612627
8 Lithuanian_LBA @ 18.828424
9 Benzigerode_LN2 @ 20.271212
10 Sintashta_BA @ 20.654575

Using 2 populations approximation:
1 50% Corded_Ware_LN1 +50% Bell_Beaker_BA7 @ 3.070571


Using 3 populations approximation:
1 50% Afansievo_BA +25% Montenegro_BA2 +25% Nordic_MN @ 1.066320


Using 4 populations approximation:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 Afansievo_BA + Lithuanian_LBA + Bell_Beaker_BA7 + Nordic_BA2 @ 0.714873
2 Lithuanian_LBA + Bell_Beaker_BA7 + Nordic_BA2 + Yamnaya_BA @ 0.714873

Puntdnal K12

Using 1 population approximation:
1 BattleAxe_Sweden_SG_RISE94 @ 3.737329
2 Srubnaya_I0430 @ 5.450656
3 Sintashta_MBA_RISE_386 @ 6.902233
4 Srubnaya_I0232 @ 8.961604
5 Corded_Ware_Germany_I0104 @ 9.396262
6 Potapovka_I0419 @ 10.495844
7 Corded_Ware_Germany_I0103 @ 10.560936
8 Sintashta_MBA_RISE395 @ 10.981258
9 Andronovo_SG_RISE505 @ 11.684521
10 Bell_Beaker_Czech_RISE569 @ 12.189661

Using 2 populations approximation:
1 50% Sintashta_MBA_RISE_386 +50% BattleAxe_Sweden_SG_RISE94 @ 3.151067


Using 3 populations approximation:
1 50% Sintashta_MBA_RISE_386 +25% BattleAxe_Sweden_SG_RISE94 +25% BattleAxe_Sweden_SG_RISE94 @ 3.151067


Using 4 populations approximation:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 Sintashta_MBA_RISE_386 + BattleAxe_Sweden_SG_RISE94 + BattleAxe_Sweden_SG_RISE94 + BattleAxe_Sweden_SG_RISE94 @ 2.583539
2 Sintashta_MBA_RISE_386 + Sintashta_MBA_RISE_386 + BattleAxe_Sweden_SG_RISE94 + BattleAxe_Sweden_SG_RISE94 @ 3.151067

Finn
03-11-2018, 09:37 AM
What makes you say that? There is no evidence of that. Olalde et al collected Bell Beaker samples from all over Europe, but not a single U106 showed up.

Maybe you're right, but if one looks at things in chronological order the way they currently stand, it's 1) RISE98 in Sweden; 2) I7196 in Unetice in the Czech Republic; and 3) I4070 from Oostwoud in the Netherlands.

Unless by "just to the south" you mean along the Baltic coast.

May be the rabbit comes out of the Baltic hat......who knows.....

Are there indications. No not yet. When we compare Rise94 with Rise98 we see in in Rise94 very clear signals of CW/Sintashta, Rise 98 comes from the Bell Beaker/Unetice world.

So may be surprise surprise. But there is no "driving force" that brought R1b U106 from the Baltics to Scandinavia and the Lowlands/NW Germany. In the case of Bell Beaker/Unetice they are clearly to identify: Sögel/Wohlde Warriors/ Elp, Unetice/Tumulus they all left their traces in the Northern Plain/ Scandinavia during the Bronze Age.

Finn
03-11-2018, 09:47 AM
We should take caution with these Gedmatch results. As you can see, Rise98 is similar to other Bronze Age populations,(although the results vary) but it doesn't necessary mean that there is a connection with the Bell Beaker/Unetice area. There are also other explanations for this similarity. This requires other methods.

The method I use is that I take admixture with tons of salt, I see them as vaguely indicators/ signals. I compare them with historical/archeological knowledge. What are the driving forces behind migration? Did they left traces? I try to combine them....

Nino90
03-11-2018, 09:54 AM
I got Y-dna:

R1b1a1a2a1a2b1

Is that close?

Finn
03-11-2018, 10:01 AM
What makes you say that? There is no evidence of that. Olalde et al collected Bell Beaker samples from all over Europe, but not a single U106 showed up.

Maybe you're right, but if one looks at things in chronological order the way they currently stand, it's 1) RISE98 in Sweden; 2) I7196 in Unetice in the Czech Republic; and 3) I4070 from Oostwoud in the Netherlands.

Unless by "just to the south" you mean along the Baltic coast.

This "chronology' doen't mean that it's the actual chronology, there is a random factor in the samples.

May be there are much older samples in German, Czech and/or Dutch soil......

So indeed we have to deal with the samples we have, but you can't derive such strictly chronology from it.

And the Baltic becomes your Carthago, like Cato who finished his speeches always with: "Furthermore, (moreover) I consider that Carthage must be destroyed" ;)

Radboud
03-11-2018, 11:09 AM
Of course! I use it only through the eyelashes......not literally. It get's more clear when you compare it with Rise 94, Viby Sweden, 2000 BC.

Through the eyelashes you get some different atmosphere: Corded/Sintashta

Beakers and Unetice are not fully absent but mostly on the sideline.

Sinstatha showed up in Rise 98 only once and very on distance.

So the context is different between Rise94 and Rise98.


Yeah, but it has been already know that Rise94 is a certified Batle axe sample and clusters with other CWC samples, so these results make sense. Compared to Rise94, Rise98 has more western stuff aka WHG/EEF ancestry. These Unetice and Beaker samples from these calculators have also generally more western stuff compared to CWC.

Does this mean that there is a connection? No, it means they are similar in admixture proportions. It requires other methods to find out if Rise98 is indeed from Unetice/Bell Beaker world or if the ancestral CWC-like population of Rise98 just mixed with the local population in Scandinavia, so Rise98 was becoming similar to Bronze Age populations & modern populations like Swedes and Norwegians. Alternatively, he wasn't from either BB or CWC world, but it was an anonymous steppe-derived population. We simply do not know at this point.

Finn
03-11-2018, 11:48 AM
Y No, it means they are similar in admixture proportions.

Yes, and I think it's not coincidence that in this respects Rise98 clusters with Bell Beaker/Unetice and Rise 94 with Corded/Sintasha.

Methodological it can indeed be a coincidental there can in the mathematical sense also be a Chinese with exact the same admixture proportions. It doen't as such discriminate.

But pardon me that in this matter I take the more pragmatic way when I consider this signs on another way!

I use it to see in which "cloud of ancestors" it's rooted.

The same excersition with Rise 97 (Fredriksberg, Sweden, 2000 BC) is also interesting it comes close to Rise 94, CW/Sintasha but with some Srubna addition.

Using 1 population approximation:
1 Srubnaya_I0430 @ 5.737813
2 BattleAxe_Sweden_SG_RISE94 @ 5.878454
3 Srubnaya_I0232 @ 6.973905
4 Sintashta_MBA_RISE_386 @ 7.084145
5 Potapovka_I0419 @ 7.281490
6 Corded_Ware_Germany_I0103 @ 8.719996
7 Corded_Ware_Estonia_RISE00 @ 8.930973
8 Sintashta_MBA_RISE395 @ 9.117853
9 Unetice_EBA_I0117 @ 9.207479
10 Corded_Ware_Germany_I0104 @ 9.224319


These admixtures ancient are ideal to indentify the cloud of ancestors, in the case of the two Battle Axes Rise 94/97 it's clear Corded/Sintasha/Srubna.

The admixture of Rise98 is differentiated it's BB/Unetice.

Would be interesting to see if we could put Oostwoud 1800 BC in the mix.......

Finn
03-11-2018, 12:29 PM
Yeah, but it has been already know that Rise94 is a certified Batle axe sample and clusters with other CWC samples, so these results make sense. Compared to Rise94, Rise98 has more western stuff aka WHG/EEF ancestry. These Unetice and Beaker samples from these calculators have also generally more western stuff compared to CWC.

Does this mean that there is a connection? No, it means they are similar in admixture proportions. It requires other methods to find out if Rise98 is indeed from Unetice/Bell Beaker world or if the ancestral CWC-like population of Rise98 just mixed with the local population in Scandinavia, so Rise98 was becoming similar to Bronze Age populations & modern populations like Swedes and Norwegians. Alternatively, he wasn't from either BB or CWC world, but it was an anonymous steppe-derived population. We simply do not know at this point.

Plus the point is Radboud is that the facts and figures as such don't give a picture.....

It's like try to gasp a painting by zooming in (with your nose almost in the painting) or zoom out from a distance. Endless zooming (mathematical) in delivers in the end a nice description of the admixture of the colors/the paint and it's components but no sense of the painting as a whole ;)

They need context (zoom out). For example when Rise 94 is close to Sintasha in the admixture than the admixture doen't tell you what the direction is, it can be from Sintasha area to Sweden or the other way around......

So we have history/archeology to put that in context.

Finn
03-11-2018, 01:13 PM
Other Battle Axe Rise 61, Kyndelose, Denmark, 2000 BC. Exact the same picture as Rise94 and 97, and again differentiated from Rise98.

1 BattleAxe_Sweden_SG_RISE94 @ 3.581431
2 Srubnaya_I0430 @ 5.059141
3 Sintashta_MBA_RISE_386 @ 7.062647
4 Srubnaya_I0232 @ 8.338489
5 Potapovka_I0419 @ 9.356936
6 Corded_Ware_Germany_I0104 @ 9.467721
7 Corded_Ware_Germany_I0103 @ 10.064139
8 Sintashta_MBA_RISE395 @ 10.536570
9 Bell_Beaker_Czech_RISE569 @ 11.169138
10 Corded_Ware_Estonia_RISE00 @ 11.496361

Finn
03-11-2018, 01:39 PM
So the Battle Axes of Scandinavia, all from 2000 BC, so close to the timing of Rise 98 (R1b U106), give a nice picture of the inhabitants of Southern Scandinavia at that time. Indeed no surprise:CW, sintasha and srubna derived.

Rise 98 doesn't fill in this picture. Rise 98 don't share the admixture proportions of his life time people of Battle Axe.

He show's affinity in the admixture with central European BB and Unetice. As such he can be considered as an example of the new Bronze Age population that went from Central Europe to Scandinavia. An artisan, trader from Central Europe that went to Scandinavia? It's situation along the coast gives that frontier opportunity.....

As such he is one of the people that became in the Bronze Age very successful. They gave an impuls to the flourishing Nordic Bronze Age. There were so successful (and multiplied) that many modern Scandinavian (4000 years later!) resemble Rise 98 in it's admixture.

Radboud
03-11-2018, 01:47 PM
They need context. For example when Rise 94 is close to Sintasha in the admixture than the admixture doen't tell you what the direction is, it can be from Sintasha area to Sweden or the other way around......

So we have history/archeology to put that in context.

It looks like you are indeed reading to much in these results as I explained before.Sintasha culture and Srubna culture postdate CWC/Battle-Axe and are in the Steppe region. The reason why they show up is because they are similar, but these two specific cultures are not the ancestors of Battle-Axe, simply because they are to late.


Let's take a closer look at history/archealogy of Rise94:

- Rise94 is from a certified Battle-Axe grave which is part of the Corded Ware Culture.
- Rise94 looks like a typical CWC sample, based on several tests and PCA's.


Rise98:

- Although Lilla Beddinge is considered as Battle-Axe Cemetery, it's grave is atypical, but not totally different.
- Rise98 is from the Nordic LN period, there is no evidence of new people arriving in Scania, Middle and Eastern Denmark during this period.(Including Bell Beakers and Unetice)So there was population continuity
- Rise98 is closer to Bronze Age populations and modern Scandinavians than Rise94.
- There is still zero R1b-U106 in Bell Beakers.

Historically/archaeologically, there is no clear connection with Bell Beakers or Unetice, so we have to also look at other scenarios like the ancestral CWC-like population of Rise98 mixing with the local population in Scandinavia. As I said before, it requires more methods than just some admixture results.

It's no secret that LN Nordic samples are heterogeneous though. Take a look at this PCA:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9o3EYTdM8lQUGlfZGJTY2M3TW8/view

Btw, which calculator did you take for Rise97? I get this when I run Rise97 @MDLP K11. I need to check more on Rise97.



Using 1 population approximation:
1 British_IronAge @ 15.592609
2 Nordic_LBA @ 16.350151
3 Nordic_BA @ 17.080303
4 Nordic_IA @ 17.202759
5 Hungary_BA @ 17.661503
6 British_AngloSaxon @ 18.665098
7 British_Celtic @ 19.364939
8 Bell_Beaker_Germany @ 19.708370
9 Nordic_LN @ 19.801493
10 Unetice_EBA @ 20.186323
11 Unetice_MBA @ 20.406248
12 Alberstedt_LN @ 20.772661
13 Bell_Beaker_Czech @ 20.787287
14 Halberstadt_LBA @ 20.840080
15 Nordic_MN_B @ 21.354731
16 BenzigerodeHeimburg_LN @ 22.099199
17 Corded_Ware_Proto_Unetice_Poland @ 22.334274
18 Nordic_LN @ 22.972113
19 Swedish_LN @ 23.842947
20 Corded_Ware_Estonia @ 24.419462

Using 2 populations approximation:
1 50% Hungary_MBA +50% Scandinavian_NH @ 10.150256


Using 3 populations approximation:
1 50% LesCloseaux13_Mesolithic +25% Satsurblia_CHG +25% Spain_MN @ 8.475865


Using 4 populations approximation:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 Kotias_CHG + LesCloseaux13_Mesolithic + Luxembourg_Mesolithic + Spain_EN @ 5.587667
2 Kotias_CHG + LesCloseaux13_Mesolithic + Luxembourg_Mesolithic + Tyrolean_Iceman_EN @ 5.670200
3 Europe_EN + Kotias_CHG + LesCloseaux13_Mesolithic + Luxembourg_Mesolithic @ 5.904660
4 Hungary_HG + Kotias_CHG + LesCloseaux13_Mesolithic + Spain_EN @ 6.101258
5 BerryAuBac_Mesolithic + Kotias_CHG + LesCloseaux13_Mesolithic + Spain_EN @ 6.108431
6 Bichon_Azillian + Kotias_CHG + LesCloseaux13_Mesolithic + Spain_EN @ 6.108431
7 Continenza_Paleolithic + Kotias_CHG + LesCloseaux13_Mesolithic + Spain_EN @ 6.108431
8 Kotias_CHG + LaBrana_Mesolithic + LesCloseaux13_Mesolithic + Spain_EN @ 6.108431
9 Kotias_CHG + LesCloseaux13_Mesolithic + Swedish_Mesolithic + Spain_EN @ 6.108431
10 Kotias_CHG + LesCloseaux13_Mesolithic + Spain_EN + Swedish_Motala_Mesolithic @ 6.108431
11 Iberia_Mesolithic + Kotias_CHG + LesCloseaux13_Mesolithic + Spain_EN @ 6.118308
12 Kotias_CHG + LesCloseaux13_Mesolithic + Spain_EN + Villabruna_Epigravettian @ 6.176599
13 Bockstein_Mesolithic + Kotias_CHG + LesCloseaux13_Mesolithic + Spain_EN @ 6.180233
14 Kotias_CHG + LesCloseaux13_Mesolithic + Ranchot88_Mesolithic + Spain_EN @ 6.189031
15 Bockstein_Mesolithic + Kotias_CHG + LesCloseaux13_Mesolithic + Tyrolean_Iceman_EN @ 6.312545
16 Kotias_CHG + LesCloseaux13_Mesolithic + Motala_HG + Spain_EN @ 6.316311
17 Chaudardes1_Mesolithic + Kotias_CHG + LesCloseaux13_Mesolithic + Spain_EN @ 6.322373
18 Kotias_CHG + LesCloseaux13_Mesolithic + Rochedane_Epipaleolithic + Spain_EN @ 6.361980
19 Falkenstein_Mesolithic + Kotias_CHG + LesCloseaux13_Mesolithic + Spain_EN @ 6.421973
20 Kotias_CHG + LesCloseaux13_Mesolithic + Luxembourg_Mesolithic + Starcevo_EN @ 6.479964


Btw, ''Battle Axe'' Rise 61 is actually from the Single Grave period in Denmark. Date is 2650-2300 BC.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9o3EYTdM8lQNmVodWdTdzFjdVE/view

rms2
03-11-2018, 02:11 PM
I think its a potent circumstantial case. R U106 is a late comer to the north. And gave rise to the Nordic Bronze age, via Unetice.

Even circumstantial cases require evidence, and the evidence currently has U106 already in Sweden (i.e., the North) by about 2154 BC (if we go by the midpoint of RISE98's range of dates). I7196 in Unetice has a midpoint a couple of hundred years later, 1950 BC, and I4070 at Oostwoud in the Netherlands has a midpoint of 1776 BC.

Thus the actual evidence makes RISE98 in Sweden first in time, I7196 in the Czech Republic next, and then I4070 in the Netherlands last of all.

Olalde et al collected many BB samples across Europe, except in Scandinavia and along the Baltic coast, but found no U106 in Bell Beaker. Lastly, add the recent Lombard U106, with the knowledge that the Lombards were a Germanic people whose own oral tradition, later written down by Paul the Deacon, said they originated in southern Sweden.

Maybe more and earlier samples will tell a different story, but right now what we have puts U106 in the North first.

Finn
03-11-2018, 02:22 PM
It looks like you are indeed reading to much in these results as I explained before.Sintasha culture and Srubna culture postdate CWC/Battle-Axe and are in the Steppe region. The reason why they show up is because they are similar, but these two specific cultures are not the ancestors of Battle-Axe, simply because they are to late.


Let's take a closer look at history/archealogy of Rise94:

- Rise94 is from a certified Battle-Axe grave which is part of the Corded Ware Culture.
- Rise94 looks like a typical CWC sample, based on several tests and PCA's.


Rise98:

- Although Lilla Beddinge is considered as Battle-Axe Cemetery, it's grave is atypical, but not totally different.
- Rise98 is from the Nordic LN period, there is no evidence of new people arriving in Scania, Middle and Eastern Denmark during this period.(Including Bell Beakers and Unetice)So there was population continuity
- Rise98 is closer to Bronze Age populations and modern Scandinavians than Rise94.
- There is still zero R1b-U106 in Bell Beakers.

Historically/archaeologically, there is no clear connection with Bell Beakers or Unetice, so we have to also look at other scenarios like the ancestral CWC-like population of Rise98 mixing with the local population in Scandinavia. As I said before, it requires more methods than just some admixture results.

It's no secret that LN Nordic samples are heterogeneous though. Take a look at this PCA:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9o3EYTdM8lQUGlfZGJTY2M3TW8/view

Btw, which calculator did you take for Rise97? I get this when I run Rise97 @MDLP K11. I need to check more on Rise97.



Btw, ''Battle Axe'' Rise 61 is actually from the Single Grave period in Denmark. Date is 2650-2300 BC.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9o3EYTdM8lQNmVodWdTdzFjdVE/view

Interpretation and reconstruction is the essence of an historian.
Based on the admixtures and archeological knowledge answering your points.

- Although Lilla Beddinge is considered as Battle-Axe Cemetery, it's grave is atypical, but not totally different.

As said use and reuse of older graves is more often the case, dolmens are used in Bronze Age without contuinity in population, Rise 98 has as far as I know no contributes that points at a Battle Axe context.

- Rise98 is from the Nordic LN period, there is no evidence of new people arriving in Scania, Middle and Eastern Denmark during this period.(Including Bell Beakers and Unetice)So there was population continuity

Correction it's LN/EBA so on the threshold of a new period. There is lots of literature about the influence of Central European people on Scandinavia. These people came from Middle Germany, Czech etc they were rooted in Unetice and BB.

- Rise98 is closer to Bronze Age populations and modern Scandinavians than Rise94.
Hear hear! It has no similar admixture as the Battle Axe people of 2000 BC in Southern Scandinavia.

- There is still zero R1b-U106 in Bell Beakers.
Indeed.

Radboud
03-11-2018, 04:32 PM
As said use and reuse of older graves is more often the case, dolmens are used in Bronze Age without contuinity in population, Rise 98 has as far as I know no contributes that points at a Battle Axe context.



The thing is, the cemetery has no signs of Bell Beaker/Unetice influences. If you want to know more about the cemetery and Grave49 specifically, then you should take a look at the discussion between Michal and Jean M, they both have good points.

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?10134-Origins-of-Germanic/page3



Correction it's LN/EBA so on the threshold of a new period. There is lots of literature about the influence of Central European people on Scandinavia. This people came from Middle Germany, Czech etc they were rooted in Unetice and BB.


Everything points to population continuity during this period in Sweden.(Especially Nordic Late Neolithic I period) There is simply no evidence for a new people arriving after BAC or possibly even in the early Bronze Age. I do not deny the influence of the ''Central European people'' on Scandinavia, but these events happened later.

A few examples:



Today it is becoming widely accepted that a material culture
of Bell Beaker derivation characterised northwestern Denmark in
the late third millennium BC, whilst material culture in central and
eastern Denmark remained relatively Beaker-free and thus more
indigenously Late Neolithic.




Locally produced fi ne-ware Beaker pottery and a series of Beaker-affi
liated objects and cultural traits characterise settlements
and burials in northern Jutland during the early part of the Late
Neolithic (fi g. 6–9). New formal concepts were adopted from Beaker groups at the lower Rhine around 2350 BC and subsequently translated into a local cultural language. This blend of Beaker Culture
and Late Neolithic Culture sets the region apart from the remainder
of Denmark, which in the main only adopted the Late Neolithic
part whereas the Beaker part was largely rejected as a way
of presenting cultural identity.


Btw, I cannot find much about Rise97, but it seems this sample is actually different compared to RISE94. (Not definitive)


[1] "distance%=2.9521"

Battle_Axe_Sweden:RISE94

Yamnaya_Samara,60.4
Barcin_N,26
Blatterhole_HG,13.6

[1] "distance%=2.9097"

Nordic_LN:RISE97

Yamnaya_Samara,44.4
Barcin_N,32
Blatterhole_HG,23.6

(Dropped the Koros_HG for this one)

"distance%=3.3329"

Nordic_LN:RISE98

Yamnaya_Samara,41.2
Barcin_N,28.2
Blatterhole_HG,19
Ukraine_Mesolithic,11.6

Without Ukraine_Mesolithic

"distance%=3.4038"

Nordic_LN:RISE98

Yamnaya_Samara,48.4
Barcin_N,25.8
Blatterhole_HG,25.8

Finn
03-11-2018, 05:00 PM
The thing is, the cemetery has no signs of Bell Beaker/Unetice influences. If you want to know more about the cemetery and Grave49 specifically, then you should take a look at the discussion between Michal and Jean M, they both have good points.

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?10134-Origins-of-Germanic/page3



Everything points to population continuity during this period in Sweden.(Especially Nordic Late Neolithic I period) There is simply no evidence for a new people arriving after BAC or possibly even in the early Bronze Age. I do not deny the influence of the ''Central European people'' on Scandinavia, but these events happened later.

A few examples:





Btw, I cannot find much about Rise97, but it looks like this sample is actually different compared to RISE94 and RISE61.
This is no open debate my friend...in some way you stuck to old labels.

There is no archeological and even less genetic assumption to make that Rise 98 is related to Battle Axe.
Admixtures are rejected by a kind of theoretical argument that cane be used against any admixture result....

Jean Manco doesn't come any further than to state it's a atypical grave....And I agree with her. And not only his grave is a-typcial his genetics are also atypical related to the other southern scandinavians at that time. Those other Scandinavians clit together in de admixtures, Rise 98 doesn't

In the end you make a typical conclusion: ok, than let's assume a population continuity.....WHY?
With doubts stuck to the old label something like that?

The point is that on the threshold of LN/EBA, so to the EBA, the culture did change and new people did came in. A few defensive quotes don't overule the state of art in the Nordic Bronze Age archeology, read Vandkilde, Prescott, Kristiansen etc etc.

With such a a-typcial sample there are more reasons to believe that Rise98 is a representative of a new population element than of continuity.....

Radboud
03-11-2018, 06:22 PM
T
Admixtures are rejected by a kind of theoretical argument that cane be used against any admixture result....


That was not my only argument, you need more than just a few admixture results to have a better view about a certain Ancient sample. ADMIXTURE can be tricky.(Especially ancient samples) For example, I ran RISE97 with MDLP K11 and I get different results. You need to run models on Nmonte, compare it with relevant samples and check PCA's to have a better view about the sample.



Jean Manco doesn't come any further than to state it's a atypical grave.... And I agree with her.


That's not the only thing she mentioned, but ok.



And not only his grave is a-typcial his genetics are also atypical related to the other southern scandinavians at that time. Those other Scandinavians clit together in de admixtures, Rise 98 doesn't


If you are talking about Battle Axe samples and the Single grave one, then you are correct. However, other Nordic_LN samples like RISE97 seems to be closer to RISE98 than to RISE94. I need to check more stuff though.



The point is that on the threshold of LN/EBA, so to the EBA, the culture did change and new people did came in. A few defensive quotes don't overule the state of art in the Nordic Bronze Age archeology, read Vandkilde, Prescott, Kristiansen etc etc.


Erm, there is no evidence of the arrival of new people in this area during the LN Nordic period I. Rise98 is from this period,not the Nordic Bronze Age, the sample was even not on treshold of LN/EBA. LN Nordic I =/= Nordic Bronze Age. They are different time periods. Feel free to give me quotes and sources about people arriving and/or cultural changes during the LN Nordic I period in Sweden, because I failed to find them.



With such a a-typcial sample there are more reasons to believe that Rise98 is a representative of a new population element than of continuity.....

Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't, but you should not ignore the counter-arguments either.

Angantyr
03-11-2018, 06:46 PM
Interpretation and reconstruction is the essence of an historian.
Based on the admixtures and archeological knowledge answering your points.

- Although Lilla Beddinge is considered as Battle-Axe Cemetery, it's grave is atypical, but not totally different.

As said use and reuse of older graves is more often the case, dolmens are used in Bronze Age without contuinity in population, Rise 98 has as far as I know no contributes that points at a Battle Axe context.

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...

Finn
03-11-2018, 07:07 PM
That was not my only argument, you need more than just a few admixture results to have a better view about a certain Ancient sample. ADMIXTURE can be tricky.(Especially ancient samples) For example, I ran RISE97 with MDLP K11 and I get different results. You need to run models on Nmonte, compare it with relevant samples and check PCA's to have a better view about the sample.



That's not the only thing she mentioned, but ok.



If you are talking about Battle Axe samples and the Single grave one, then you are correct. However, other Nordic_LN samples like RISE97 seems to be closer to RISE98 than to RISE94. I need to check more stuff though.



Erm, there is no evidence of the arrival of new people in this area during LN Nordic period. Rise98 is from this period,not the Nordic Bronze Age, the sample was even not on treshold of LN/EBA. LN Nordic I =/= Nordic Bronze Age. They are different time periods. Feel free to give me quotes and sources about people arriving and/or cultural changes during the LN Nordic I period in Sweden, because I failed to find them.



Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't, but you should not ignore the counter-arguments either.

When the counter arguments are convincing than no problem I will be the first to admit I was wrong.

But the counter arguments come mostly in some kind of defensive way.


That was not my only argument, you need more than just a few admixture results to have a better view about a certain Ancient sample. ADMIXTURE can be tricky.(Especially ancient samples) For example, I ran RISE97 with MDLP K11 and I get different results. You need to run models on Nmonte, compare it relevant samples and check PCA's to have a better view about the sample.



Agree that's better to have more material. But the one I do have indicates, through the eye lashes, that Rise 98 has some kind of Central European (Unetice, BB ) ancestry.
When you have contraindications please make them explicit. Now you only hint without making things explicit.


That's not the only thing she mentioned, but ok.


Indeed. And so? The conclusion a-typical I share, she hasn't made clear that it was a 'pure' Battle Axe/Single Grave, wasn't it?


Erm, there is no evidence of the arrival of new people in this area during LN Nordic period. LN Nordic I =/= Nordic Bronze Age. They are different time periods. Feel free to give me quotes and sources about people arriving and/or cultural changes during the LN Nordic I period in Sweden, because I failed to find them.


As you know see the work and the timetable from VanKilde, they are talking about LN/EBA, not separate but, LN and EBA. Rise 98 falls in this range.
And when you think that in history this kind of periodization are exactly I can tell you that's mostly wrong. History is not that well ordered.....
But archeologist want to show this that this period is a turning point so from the Neolithic to the Bronze age. That are mostly piecemeal processes. Regional differentiated. But on the whole this was a period when new idea's, new materials and also new people came in.

Archeologist, mostly cultural interested, assume there is certainly a connection between Scandinavia and Central Europe. In fact the Bronze Age cultures of Central Europe gave the push to the Nordic Bronze Age. Most archeologist do not describe genetics that's mostly out of their range, other paradigma.

See for example this recent work. (https://books.google.nl/books?id=ovHOBAAAQBAJ&pg=PT274&lpg=PT274&dq=LN+EBA+central+Europe+Scandinavia&source=bl&ots=pBk3DCckat&sig=conPeo32z6sYke6OcbmOEl-IljE&hl=nl&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiV36yp-OTZAhVDhqQKHcLzDAIQ6AEIKzAA#v=onepage&q=LN%20EBA%20central%20Europe%20Scandinavia&f=false)

People like Davidski have stated that at this period LN/EBA there was an influx of people with a reference to R1b.

So if come with explicit arguments Radboud and a real counter story not hints and side kick remarks....so feel invited to do so!

Finn
03-11-2018, 07:19 PM
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...

Thanks for this qualified contribution!!!!:thumb:

alan
03-11-2018, 07:48 PM
The location of RISE near Malmö and the short crossing from Copenhagen in east Denmark suggests an arrival by boat using that kind of route. As for inland Europe the closest large river which reaches the Baltic from central Europe is the Oder which flows from Czech and slovakia then along the polish/German border to the Baltic

Radboud
03-11-2018, 08:00 PM
When the counter arguments are convincing than no problem I will be the first to admit I was wrong.

But the counter arguments come mostly in some kind of defensive way.


I am just exploring other scenarios, but you seem to fixate on the BB/Unetice scenario while there is no evidence of BB or Unetice influence in that area.(Plus the zero R1b-U106 in Bell Beakers)



Agree that's better to have more material. But the one I do have indicates, through the eye lashes, that Rise 98 has some kind of Central European (Unetice, BB ) ancestry.
When you have contraindications please make them explicit. Now you only hint without making things explicit.



Run Rise97 with MLDP11 and you will see contractions with the other results as I showed before. It seems you are actually ignoring different parts of my posts.

I already showed some Nmonte3 results. Plus, the Nordic LN/BA samples seem to be diverse. However, it looks none of them cluster with the Battle Axe/ Single grave samples and are different. Take a look at this PCA for example:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9o3EYTdM8lQUGlfZGJTY2M3TW8/view






Indeed. And so? The conclusion a-typical I share, she hasn't made clear that it was a 'pure' Battle Axe/Single Grave, wasn't it?


Let's be clear: It's an atypical grave and I agree that we could easily question it's association with Battle-Axe.(Especially after seeing Angantyr's post) But I meant these posts from Jean M are also quite interesting from that topic:


Yes indeed. However we have to set it in context. Grave 49 was in a Battle Axe cemetery and respected the general pattern of graves there (graves in line, timber coffin, stones on top), as I described above. So this grave was presumably dug by people of the same community who dug the grave 52 which was the richest of the group and had BA pottery. So we have to ask ourselves why grave 49 had no grave goods, seems to be that of an entire family and ignored the preferred ritual. We cannot know for sure. Was this the end of a calamity? Were they slaughtered? Or did their house burn down?

It is highly unlikely that they belonged to a totally different community which had somehow hung on to the Funnel Beaker concept of collective burial. It was not a collective burial in a long barrow. The latter were places that could be reopened for new burials. Here it seems were a family buried together at the same time.


I have to confess to you that I actually have no doubts about the CWC/BAC identity of the sample. None of the archaeologists expert in BAC who excavated the site or have described it or commented on it have expressed the teeniest doubt about that. Grave 49 is in the BAC database. In date it is late enough to be described as Late Neolithic, which I have now realised actually comes after BAC in the Scandinavian chronology. But no-one is postulating anything except population continuity. As you know, I am generally sceptical about claims of population continuity from archaeologists, because this idea became a dogma. But let's say I don't see any evidence for a new people arriving after BAC or even in the early Bronze Age. So to make the U106 'foreign' we'd have to go in for special pleading, as things stand at present.

But please believe that I appreciate the discussion. It pushed me into thinking about the site and finding the best form of words and references for it.




As you know see the work and the timetable from the work of VanKilde, they are talking about LN/EBA, not separate but, LN and EBA. Rise 98 falls in this range.
And when you think that in history this kind of periodization are exactly I can tell you that's mostly wrong. History is not that well ordered.....
But archeologist want to show this that this period is a turning point so from the Neolithic to the Bronze age. That are mostly piecemeal processes. Regional differentiated. But on the whole this was a period when new idea's, new materials and also new people came in.

Thank you for the link. I disagree, VanKilde was cleary talking about Nordic LN I seperately, but there was overlap between Nordic LN II and EBA.



Outline of Late Neolithic Chronology
The Late Neolithic Period may be divided into an early phase and
a late phase based on fl int daggers, as described above (fi g. 1). LN I
and II differ markedly from each other. LN I still relates to the pre
ceding Neolithic periods, whereas LN II is more closely attached to
the earliest Bronze Age. A relatively large number of radiocarbon
dates exists for the later Neolithic in Denmark, and these have recently
been archaeologically and statistically assessed, hence allowing
for qualifi ed suggestions as regards beginning and end
points of phases and periods and their fl oruit (Vandkilde 1996;
Vandkilde et al. 1996).
From the Upper Grave Period of the Single Grave Culture only
seven dates exist. This is unfortunate since it complicates an estimation
of the end of the Single Grave Culture. There is considerable
agreement between the end of the Bottom Grave Period–Ground
Grave Period and the beginning of the Upper Grave Period, the
transition being c. 2460 BC. At the opposite end, the latest Upper
Grave dates overlap with the Late Neolithic Period: the total duration
of the Upper Grave Period apparently being between 2460–
2130 BC whereas the Late Neolithic Period begins at c. 2350 BC.
Whether this overlap is real or merely due to the few Upper Grave
dates not being representative cannot be decided at present.
However, as suggested below, it is likely that a 'Single Grave tradition'7
continued for a while in the remainder of Denmark, after
the onset of the Late Neolithic Culture in northern Jutland. Some
degree of overlap in absolute dating should thus be anticipated.
Well over thirty radiocarbon dates have been recorded from LN I.
The beginning of LN I can thus be fi rmly dated to c. 2350 BC, at
the same time indicating the gradual disappearance of the Single
Grave Culture. LN I lasted around 400 years, until c. 1950 BC,
whereas LN II concluded around 1700 BC. Most early dates, however,
derive from Beaker sites in northern Jutland, suggesting that
Beakers belong predominantly in the earlier LN I. It may then initially
be asserted that Beakers date to LN I, and especially to an
early part of this fi rst Late Neolithic period.p

Finn
03-11-2018, 08:33 PM
Resumé:
Angantyr's contribution was very clear: no indications of a connection with Battle/Axe single grave.
And also an opening for the possibility of 'foreign' roots/ migrants.
The admixture showed the connection with a Central European (Middle Germany, Czech) ancestry (Unetice, BB roots).
Alan makes clear that there was by the river the Oder a direct link between Czech, Middle Germany to Lilla Beddinge.

I know it's not written in marble....but the indications are getting stronger.....

Bollox79
03-11-2018, 09:23 PM
Glad to see U106 is getting discussed as it's still a bit of a mystery ;-). Thing to remember is that SNPs are important with regards to ancient and modern matches. Remember when no one would have predicted a U106er in Great Britain until 400 or 500s AD... and we had a nice cluster of S4004 guys in Northern Great Britain and Scotland... and surprise one of the u106 gladiators of York 6drif-3 was S4004 (and some more SNPs found in that little group I'm in) and 3drif16 was also Z304 and DF96 etc. Case of modern samples giving us a clue.

Another one was very recent and I wasn't ALL that surprised we found a U106 Z156 and down to S1894 guy in modern day Czech Republic. Those Polish and eastern samples at or around the Z304 level (including the random Ukrainian one who matches the Dutton family at S1911) made me think there is some connection with that area of SNPs with the East and there ya go... a U106 guy there further "East" than where most U106 is today.

In addition to the burial context, you have to pay attention to the SNP tree... and RISE98 is an outlier and kind of a dead end SNP wise. I wouldn't look to hard at him for the guy who set off making U106 successful (him or the culture he was a part of... other than it tells a story... perhaps an early migrant trader?). The Oostwoud guy is U106 and Z381 (I remember seeing positive reads for those SNPs from Alex's chart) and that doesn't tell us much SNP wise... as Z381 is upstream/ancestral to both Z156 and L48 - two very large groups under Z381 so he could be either Z156 (which has a more Southern cline - and the Z156ers found in Scandinavia tend to be clustering later in the SNP tree... so makes it look as if they came from somewhere else if that makes sense)... or L48 which is much more common in the North and also two of those Lombards were L48+ (which didn't surprise me because if I had to pick an SNP that might be linked with a group from Southern Scandinavia or Northern Germany - I would have chose L48)... but what I want to know about those other Lombards who were just Z381 - are any of them also Z156? That would change our thinking a bit on Z156 since these Lombards are very likely from the North (based on autosomal) and from a proven burial and time period.... if any are also Z156 that would mean it was up there with L48...

Does that make sense? We need many more ancient samples combined with modern ones... to see the geographic clusters and where certain SNPs were at different times (like seeing only L48 in the Lombard samples - samples from about 500s AD and with proven Northern European ancestry) and not seeing any Z156... that further supports the hypothesis that Z156 was not a part of those those Northern Germanic groups who spread through the migration era... or at least the Lombards... but then I'd be willing to bet some of the early SNPs downstream of L48 and shared with modern samples from Northern Germany and England... were involved in the Anglo-Saxon or some other Germanic migration... based on overall SNP structure, these ancient results, and modern clustering... for now (could change!)!!

Of course I'm trying to work backward from present to ancient times like this... we can also try and figure out where U106 was way back when... but I think we need more samples from the Baltic and other places East... as I'm 100% convinced it came from the East. Even Unetice man seems to support this as he is S1894 - Dr. Iain and I both share that SNP... and S4004 was the start of what looks like my group under S1894 really started to move around based on current samples and shouldn't be too surprising that it is timed with the expansion West of the Unetice culture and the eventual failure of their economy based on bronze working and running out of easy tin (I think) access... also deforestation from processing those metals... and simple population growth also. I've been reading Unetice stuff (academic papers) and sending summaries to Dr. Iain as we discuss this new Unetice sample.

P.S. Dr. Iain knows more about it then me... the explosion of SNPs at certain times in the SNP tree of U106... gives us clues to when what cultures they may have been a part of... expanded and/or were successful!!! Same can be said of SNPs being found further East (Unetice man to S1894), but that being mostly an SNP found in the Isles and Low countries/France in modern testers ;-). Makes it look like it moved West... for now ;-).

For evidence of what I'm talking about and referencing here... here is Dr. Iain's pdf of on my "side" of U106 under Z156 and DF98 (under which Unetice man falls in the S1900/1894 level) it's the draft update that doesn't have the House of Wettin group done yet: http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~mcdonald/genetics/kings-cluster-draft.pdf

As always I welcome you quoting and chatting with me ;-).

alan
03-11-2018, 09:24 PM
Nothing much is clear about U106 but it's hard to accept it was still moving about with P312 in 2200BC when their last common ancestor was probably c 3100BC.

Bollox79
03-11-2018, 09:33 PM
Nothing much is clear about U106 but it's hard to accept it was still moving about with P312 in 2200BC when their last common ancestor was probably c 3100BC.

I honestly think it went North into the Baltic or somewhere in the East (Eastern Europe) that we haven't looked at yet... as for now I can say my "line" DF98 - S1911 - S1900/S1894 literally came from Unetice and near Prague ;-)... until we find another guy who is positive for those SNPs... the key is having enough ancient samples to figure out which cultures it was in that were moving West... I'd say they were post-Beaker cultures...

Has any of the early Jutland/Denmark guy been tested? Further East on the Baltic? I want to see the medieval results and Roman era results from that Polish study about the Piasts and see how much of it was U106 - particularly in the Roman period and what subgroups like Z156 or L48 etc.

Bollox79
03-11-2018, 09:37 PM
I'd love to see more ancient results from the different Germanic groups - Franks, Alamanni... similar to the work done on the Lombard cemetery at Szolad... to see how much U106 was there since it's assumed it was a large part of those groups - for now we know that is true in regards to Lombards ;-).

Bollox79
03-11-2018, 09:40 PM
Resumé:
Angantyr's contribution was very clear: no indications of a connection with Battle/Axe single grave.
And also an opening for the possibility of 'foreign' roots/ migrants.
The admixture showed the connection with a Central European (Middle Germany, Czech) ancestry (Unetice, BB roots).
Alan makes clear that there was by the river the Oder a direct link between Czech, Middle Germany to Lilla Beddinge.

I know it's not written in marble....but the indications are getting stronger.....

Another thing to check Sir Finn... since the Isotopes make it look like some of grave 49 were possible migrants... see if there was any isotope analysis done on Oostwoud man and also on Unetice man - I found some separate stuff on Unetice man's grave, but it was all in Czech and google translate only translated some of it and it was hard to make sense of it... unaware if isotope analysis was a part of any of the papers on his graveyard. Other than bronze items were considered prestige items (with the whole bronze production that was central to Unetice and creating a stratified society etc) and the U106 guy was buried with bronze - not all graves in his site had bronze items - I figured out that much from translating the Czech paper.

Bollox79
03-11-2018, 09:43 PM
Anyone know off the top of their heads what other haplogroups were found in the same cemetery as U106 man from near Prague?

alan
03-11-2018, 09:44 PM
Glad to see U106 is getting discussed as it's still a bit of a mystery ;-). Thing to remember is that SNPs are important with regards to ancient and modern matches. Remember when no one would have predicted a U106er in Great Britain until 400 or 500s AD... and we had a nice cluster of S4004 guys in Northern Great Britain and Scotland... and surprise one of the u106 gladiators of York 6drif-3 was S4004 (and some more SNPs found in that little group I'm in) and 3drif16 was also Z304 and DF96 etc. Case of modern samples giving us a clue.

Another one was very recent and I wasn't ALL that surprised we found a U106 Z156 and down to S1894 guy in modern day Czech Republic. Those Polish and eastern samples at or around the Z304 level (including the random Ukrainian one who matches the Dutton family at S1911) made me think there is some connection with that area of SNPs with the East and there ya go... a U106 guy there further "East" than where most U106 is today.

In addition to the burial context, you have to pay attention to the SNP tree... and RISE98 is an outlier and kind of a dead end SNP wise. I wouldn't look to hard at him for the guy who set off making U106 successful (him or the culture he was a part of... other than it tells a story... perhaps an early migrant trader?). The Oostwoud guy is U106 and Z381 (I remember seeing positive reads for those SNPs from Alex's chart) and that doesn't tell us much SNP wise... as Z381 is upstream/ancestral to both Z156 and L48 - two very large groups under Z381 so he could be either Z156 (which has a more Southern cline - and the Z156ers found in Scandinavia tend to be clustering later in the SNP tree... so makes it look as if they came from somewhere else if that makes sense)... or L48 which is much more common in the North and also two of those Lombards were L48+ (which didn't surprise me because if I had to pick an SNP that might be linked with a group from Southern Scandinavia or Northern Germany - I would have chose L48)... but what I want to know about those other Lombards who were just Z381 - are any of them also Z156? That would change our thinking a bit on Z156 since these Lombards are very likely from the North (based on autosomal) and from a proven burial and time period.... if any are also Z156 that would mean it was up there with L48...

Does that make sense? We need many more ancient samples combined with modern ones... to see the geographic clusters and where certain SNPs were at different times (like seeing only L48 in the Lombard samples - samples from about 500s AD and with proven Northern European ancestry) and not seeing any Z156... that further supports the hypothesis that Z156 was not a part of those those Northern Germanic groups who spread through the migration era... or at least the Lombards... but then I'd be willing to bet some of the early SNPs downstream of L48 and shared with modern samples from Northern Germany and England... were involved in the Anglo-Saxon or some other Germanic migration... based on overall SNP structure, these ancient results, and modern clustering... for now (could change!)!!

Of course I'm trying to work backward from present to ancient times like this... we can also try and figure out where U106 was way back when... but I think we need more samples from the Baltic and other places East... as I'm 100% convinced it came from the East. Even Unetice man seems to support this as he is S1894 - Dr. Iain and I both share that SNP... and S4004 was the start of what looks like my group under S1894 really started to move around based on current samples and shouldn't be too surprising that it is timed with the expansion West of the Unetice culture and the eventual failure of their economy based on bronze working and running out of easy tin (I think) access... also deforestation from processing those metals... and simple population growth also. I've been reading Unetice stuff (academic papers) and sending summaries to Dr. Iain as we discuss this new Unetice sample.

P.S. Dr. Iain knows more about it then me... the explosion of SNPs at certain times in the SNP tree of U106... gives us clues to when what cultures they may have been a part of... expanded and/or were successful!!! Same can be said of SNPs being found further East (Unetice man to S1894), but that being mostly an SNP found in the Isles and Low countries/France in modern testers ;-).

The only pattern I think is clear is absence in the ancient DNA record until 2000BC approaches then a take off after that. U106 existed somewhere long before central European beaker culture was born and probably a century or so before CW was born. But it was v minor or tucked away somewhere localised during the CW spread and indeed until a few centuries after the main beaker dispersal. Although it's tempting because they are unsampled I wouldn't look to Danish beakers as his origin because archaeologists see them as largely Rhenish in origin and with more a north/north-west distribution in Denmark. On the other hand that is the main way into Sweden from central Europe so it's very mysterious.

uintah106
03-11-2018, 09:54 PM
Yeah there are R1b proves the point .

alan
03-11-2018, 10:00 PM
Probably the most rational way to guess where the U106 guy came from is what contacts the area around Malmö had with the surrounding world around 2200BC or so. The short crossing to Copenhagen is hard to ignore. Interestingly that crossing was from a non-beaker part of Denmark. So if I had to guess then I would suggest there may have been a pre-beaker U106 enclave among the CW peoples of south-east Denmark or adjacent areas of the Baltic Coast or Lower Oder that had not been displaced by beaker people c 2200BC. The Danish beakers are on the north and west of Denmark not Baltic facing. The lack of U106 west of a line from Sweden to Czechoslovakia until after 2000BC tends to indicate they lay east of the big P312 block and were bottled up until the beaker network fell and new networks arose after 2000BC.

uintah106
03-11-2018, 10:05 PM
I honestly think it went North into the Baltic or somewhere in the East (Eastern Europe) that we haven't looked at yet... as for now I can say my "line" DF98 - S1911 - S1900/S1894 literally came from Unetice and near Prague ;-)... until we find another guy who is positive for those SNPs... the key is having enough ancient samples to figure out which cultures it was in that were moving West... I'd say they were post-Beaker cultures...

Has any of the early Jutland/Denmark guy been tested? Further East on the Baltic? I want to see the medieval results and Roman era results from that Polish study about the Piasts and see how much of it was U106 - particularly in the Roman period and what subgroups like Z156 or L48 etc.
I've been tested my male line is from lolland DK . N z2265+ by30097- same as Rise98.

uintah106
03-11-2018, 10:13 PM
Yes no R1a it was bottled up till viking times

GoldenHind
03-11-2018, 11:41 PM
Anyone know off the top of their heads what other haplogroups were found in the same cemetery as U106 man from near Prague?

The samples from the Szolad cemtary were about half R1b and half I2a, plus one E1b and one T1a. The Rib half includes three P312 men whose subclades were presumably unable to be determined. The samples from the same study from Collegno in northern Italy were overwhelmingly R1b, including five who aren't identified beyond L151 or L51.

Bollox79
03-11-2018, 11:50 PM
I've been tested my male line is from lolland DK . N z2265+ by30097- same as Rise98.

Ahh uintah106... now how does the SNPs breakdown? Are you and RISE98 both z2265 positive and by30097- and most other U106ers are by30097+? I am not very familiar with those top level SNPs...

I would say yes if RISE98 did have any modern day descendants you would look to Scandinavia or the Baltic for them... your line goes back to Denmark uintah106?

Bollox79
03-11-2018, 11:53 PM
The samples from the Szolad cemtary were about half R1b and half I2a, plus one E1b and one T1a. The Rib half includes three P312 men whose subclades were presumably unable to be determined. The samples from the same study from Collegno in northern Italy were overwhelmingly R1b, including five who aren't identified beyond L151 or L51.

Goldenhind thanks for that... but I meant the U106 man from Unetice near Prague in the big Bell Beaker paper ;-). I know some others were tested from same cemetery and couldn't remember off the top of my head if any were R1b past L151 or something ancestral or upstream of both P312 and U106 ;-).

Yes there were five U106ers in Szolad - three mature males - two with lances and one with sword, lance and shield, and two sub-adults neither over 12 years of age (one was only a few months old).

At Collegno there was one U106er, but he was kindred with those R1b guys who were only L51... so they could possibly be U106 also.

I was wondering if there was anyone working on the Lombard raw data - specifically the U106 or unresolved guys?

alan
03-12-2018, 12:48 AM
Probably the most rational way to guess where the U106 guy came from is what contacts the area around Malmö had with the surrounding world around 2200BC or so. The short crossing to Copenhagen is hard to ignore. Interestingly that crossing was from a non-beaker part of Denmark. So if I had to guess then I would suggest there may have been a pre-beaker U106 enclave among the CW peoples of south-east Denmark or adjacent areas of the Baltic Coast or Lower Oder that had not been displaced by beaker people c 2200BC. The Danish beakers are on the north and west of Denmark not Baltic facing. The lack of U106 west of a line from Sweden to Czechoslovakia until after 2000BC tends to indicate they lay east of the big P312 block and were bottled up until the beaker network fell and new networks arose after 2000BC.

So who was from outside was trading with or clearly influencing the battle axe folk of Malmo area around 2200BC? It is likely new genes flowed along contact routes that existed already. Bit of a gap in my knowledge I'm afraid but I will have a look into it.

alan
03-12-2018, 01:11 AM
So who was from outside was trading with or clearly influencing the battle axe folk of Malmo area around 2200BC? It is likely new genes flowed along contact routes that existed already. Bit of a gap in my knowledge I'm afraid but I will have a look into it.
Barbed wire beaker influence reached Sweden

Finn
03-12-2018, 07:40 AM
Another thing to check Sir Finn... since the Isotopes make it look like some of grave 49 were possible migrants... see if there was any isotope analysis done on Oostwoud man and also on Unetice man - I found some separate stuff on Unetice man's grave, but it was all in Czech and google translate only translated some of it and it was hard to make sense of it... unaware if isotope analysis was a part of any of the papers on his graveyard. Other than bronze items were considered prestige items (with the whole bronze production that was central to Unetice and creating a stratified society etc) and the U106 guy was buried with bronze - not all graves in his site had bronze items - I figured out that much from translating the Czech paper.

Here comes a kind of educated guess. Imo the Oostwoud/ Elp/Tumulus comes from a younger wave (about 1800 BC) from Central Europe to NW Europe. Most obvious sign of them is the big Tumulus graves of chieftains. In some sort of way this is close connected to an Hungarian influence.
The biggest chieftain Tumulus of the Northern plain is situated in Drouwen. And let that area be exactly the auDNA region of my mom.
And ok precocious and through the eyelashes:

PuntDNAL 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

And
Eurasia K14
1 Bell_Beaker_LN3 @ 10.563288
2 HungaryGamba_IA @ 11.617286
3 Hungarian_BA8 @ 12.735939
4 HungaryGamba_BA1 @ 16.207710
5 Bell_Beaker_LN2 @ 17.050062
6 Bell_Beaker_BA1 @ 18.841318
7 Nordic_BA1 @ 19.257463
8 Nordic_IA @ 19.258163
9 Unetice_BA1 @ 19.326574
10 Sintashta_BA @ 19.423244
11 Bell_Beaker_LN4 @ 19.859108

Some Hungarian influence indeed.....

Were in this Tumulus wave also some R1b U106 (from some younger lines than Rise98)?????

uintah106
03-12-2018, 11:15 AM
Ahh uintah106... now how does the SNPs breakdown? Are you and RISE98 both z2265 positive and by30097- and most other U106ers are by30097+? I am not very familiar with those top level SNPs...

I would say yes if RISE98 did have any modern day descendants you would look to Scandinavia or the Baltic for them... your line goes back to Denmark uintah106?

99% of U106 is Z2265+> BY30097+ , I'm over here in the tiny group that is Z2265+> BY30097-along with the Rise 98 sample though our lines diverge after that. Lolland Dk is quite close to L.Beddinge Sweden

Finn
03-12-2018, 01:48 PM
Another thing to check Sir Finn... since the Isotopes make it look like some of grave 49 were possible migrants... see if there was any isotope analysis done on Oostwoud man and also on Unetice man - I found some separate stuff on Unetice man's grave, but it was all in Czech and google translate only translated some of it and it was hard to make sense of it... unaware if isotope analysis was a part of any of the papers on his graveyard. Other than bronze items were considered prestige items (with the whole bronze production that was central to Unetice and creating a stratified society etc) and the U106 guy was buried with bronze - not all graves in his site had bronze items - I figured out that much from translating the Czech paper.

A detailed description of Oostwoud:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Barbara_Veselka/publication/320332540_Excavations_of_Late_Neolithic_arable_bur ial_mounds_and_a_number_of_wellpreserved_skeletons _at_Oostwoud-Tuithoorn_a_re-analysis_of_old_data/links/59df1888458515376b3f4995/Excavations-of-Late-Neolithic-arable-burial-mounds-and-a-number-of-wellpreserved-skeletons-at-Oostwoud-Tuithoorn-a-re-analysis-of-old-data.pdf

one add from member rafc:
Rafc:


I've taken a look at the Dutch site (Oostwoud). The burials from the Bell Beaker phase were all P312, and at least a few of them were related. It seems at a later date an other tumulus was erected very close to the Bell Beaker ones, but it cannot be classified to a culture by lack of material. Strangely enough the burial room was intact but empty. There were two secondary burials in the tumulus, a man and a woman, the man being the U106. Looking at the location and the time this is either very late Barbed wire BB, or early Elp culture. That last culture used Tumuli, and was very alike to examples in Northern Germany and Scandinavia. I think it's possible the second tumulus marks the arrival of a new group on a possibly already abandoned site, staking their claim by erecting a tumulus next to the existing BB tumulus. If these groups came from Scandinavia/Northern Germany that would fit the U106 that was preciously found in Scandinavia and absent in BB. In this case it would seem U106 was first brought by CW and not BB.

Bollox79
03-12-2018, 11:21 PM
Here comes a kind of educated guess. Imo the Oostwoud/ Elp/Tumulus comes from a younger wave (about 1800 BC) from Central Europe to NW Europe. Most obvious sign of them is the big Tumulus graves of chieftains. In some sort of way this is close connected to an Hungarian influence.
The biggest chieftain Tumulus of the Northern plain is situated in Drouwen. And let that area be exactly the auDNA region of my mom.
And ok precocious and through the eyelashes:

PuntDNAL 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

And
Eurasia K14
1 Bell_Beaker_LN3 @ 10.563288
2 HungaryGamba_IA @ 11.617286
3 Hungarian_BA8 @ 12.735939
4 HungaryGamba_BA1 @ 16.207710
5 Bell_Beaker_LN2 @ 17.050062
6 Bell_Beaker_BA1 @ 18.841318
7 Nordic_BA1 @ 19.257463
8 Nordic_IA @ 19.258163
9 Unetice_BA1 @ 19.326574
10 Sintashta_BA @ 19.423244
11 Bell_Beaker_LN4 @ 19.859108

Some Hungarian influence indeed.....

Were in this Tumulus wave also some R1b U106 (from some younger lines than Rise98)?????

Hmm interesting... I only wish we got a bit more than just U106 - Z381 from Oostwoud man as he COULD be Z156 as that is the next level under Z381... and is dated to later than the Unetice man. Tumulus comes after (direct descendant?) of Unetice and Dr. Iain and I are looking at reasons for the collapse of the Unetice and movement Westward as there are Unetice in Germany I believe... Dr. Iain and I are very interested in Unetice man as he is positive to the SNP level S1900/S1894 and that is actually where Iain and I split... and then he goes his way (mainly Isles) and I go my way in S4004 which is mainly an Northern Isles group for now... and includes a possible local from Northern England or SW Scotland in the Gladiator from 200-300 AD 6drif-3 so we know it was there then ;-).

Bollox79
03-12-2018, 11:25 PM
99% of U106 is Z2265+> BY30097+ , I'm over here in the tiny group that is Z2265+> BY30097-along with the Rise 98 sample though our lines diverge after that. Lolland Dk is quite close to L.Beddinge Sweden

You are a throw back to the earliest U106 found to date my friend ;-).

Bollox79
03-12-2018, 11:31 PM
A detailed description of Oostwoud:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Barbara_Veselka/publication/320332540_Excavations_of_Late_Neolithic_arable_bur ial_mounds_and_a_number_of_wellpreserved_skeletons _at_Oostwoud-Tuithoorn_a_re-analysis_of_old_data/links/59df1888458515376b3f4995/Excavations-of-Late-Neolithic-arable-burial-mounds-and-a-number-of-wellpreserved-skeletons-at-Oostwoud-Tuithoorn-a-re-analysis-of-old-data.pdf

one add from member rafc:
Rafc:

I think Finn, with the spread and clustering of the subgroups of U106 we may find they spread with different cultures... I'd say L48 was a part of the Nordic Bronze Age for sure... that is why I want to know if any of those Longobards in Szolad or Collegno are Z156+... as if none are... then that is interesting ;-). Getting Mr. S1894 in Unetice gets us started for our branch of DF98... remember the two main branches of DF98 for now are the Wettin side of things aka S18823 and our side S1911... two groups with lots of samples in Germany and the Low Countries and the Isles... and some sporadic samples elsewhere... what groups where moving through those areas at the time these SNPs were later splitting up? I think that is what Dr. Iain is trying to figure out, but we need more ancient samples from along the Rhine etc... and that is just my subgroup of U106... the whole story is more complicated as you know you are focusing more on the earlier stuff right Finn? :-).

Finn
03-13-2018, 12:40 PM
I think Finn, with the spread and clustering of the subgroups of U106 we may find they spread with different cultures... I'd say L48 was a part of the Nordic Bronze Age for sure... that is why I want to know if any of those Longobards in Szolad or Collegno are Z156+... as if none are... then that is interesting ;-). Getting Mr. S1894 in Unetice gets us started for our branch of DF98... remember the two main branches of DF98 for now are the Wettin side of things aka S18823 and our side S1911... two groups with lots of samples in Germany and the Low Countries and the Isles... and some sporadic samples elsewhere... what groups where moving through those areas at the time these SNPs were later splitting up? I think that is what Dr. Iain is trying to figure out, but we need more ancient samples from along the Rhine etc... and that is just my subgroup of U106... the whole story is more complicated as you know you are focusing more on the earlier stuff right Finn? :-).

I guess so. Your notions about the collaps of the Unetice culture are interesting.....the question is from about the same room, buit slightly different more "Hungarian", took over the "torch" from Unetice.

What kind of Hungarian cultures/tribes played a part in it and spread Tumulus to the Northern Plain, Southern Scandinavia? Anyone??????

In the Rise98 case we didn't saw the "Hungarian"/Tumulus influence.

But obviously the Tumulus culture had a big impact on the NW European area. So that it even coloured the admixture of nowadays NW Europeans (North Dutch).

There "has to be" a connection with some R1b U106 lines. In my auDNA there is of course a shot of Nordics that spread R1b U106, during the iron age. But, as Oostwoud shows, R1b U106 settled already in the Bronze Age on the Northern Plain!

For fun my father's case:

PuntDNAl K12

Using 1 population approximation:
1 Halberstadt_LBA_I0099 @ 5.801738
2 Unetice_EBA_I0117 @ 5.904503
3 Alberstedt_LN_I0118 @ 6.546912
4 Bell_Beaker_Germany_I1549 @ 6.575426
5 BenzigerodeHeimburg_LN_I0059 @ 7.038621
6 Nordic_LN_SG_RISE97 @ 7.125272
7 Vatya_SG_RISE479 @ 9.671631
8 Hungary_BA_I1502 @ 10.897428
9 Bell_Beaker_Czech_RISE569 @ 11.189474
10 Potapovka_I0419 @ 12.889376

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

Eurasia K14
Using 1 population approximation:
1 HungaryGamba_IA @ 10.457363
2 Bell_Beaker_LN3 @ 10.465684
3 Bell_Beaker_LN2 @ 13.772042
4 Hungarian_BA8 @ 13.909028
5 HungaryGamba_BA1 @ 15.595771
6 Bell_Beaker_BA1 @ 15.755696
7 Nordic_IA @ 16.026169
8 RISE_baSca @ 17.655712
9 Unetice_BA1 @ 18.111576
10 Sintashta_BA @ 18.352066

Using 2 populations approximation:
1 50% HungaryGamba_IA +50% Hungarian_BA8 @ 5.085634

Using 3 populations approximation:
1 50% HungaryGamba_IA +25% Corded_Ware_BA6 +25% Unetice_BA2 @ 3.834453

Finn
03-13-2018, 04:56 PM
I think Finn, with the spread and clustering of the subgroups of U106 we may find they spread with different cultures... I'd say L48 was a part of the Nordic Bronze Age for sure... that is why I want to know if any of those Longobards in Szolad or Collegno are Z156+... as if none are... then that is interesting ;-). Getting Mr. S1894 in Unetice gets us started for our branch of DF98... remember the two main branches of DF98 for now are the Wettin side of things aka S18823 and our side S1911... two groups with lots of samples in Germany and the Low Countries and the Isles... and some sporadic samples elsewhere... what groups where moving through those areas at the time these SNPs were later splitting up? I think that is what Dr. Iain is trying to figure out, but we need more ancient samples from along the Rhine etc... and that is just my subgroup of U106... the whole story is more complicated as you know you are focusing more on the earlier stuff right Finn? :-).

You described the intern problems of Unetice, but what about extern agressors.....

Because I got the link (https://books.google.nl/books?id=sHGLoSPsfL0C&pg=PA201&lpg=PA201&dq=hungarian+sogel+wohlde&source=bl&ots=l7Fd6kSuV4&sig=pa8gNoGV7BZQFqTtFL30rnkrB7M&hl=nl&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjm7Jve3-nZAhXJDOwKHWRMC3AQ6AEINjAC#v=onepage&q=hungarian%20sogel%20wohlde&f=false) between Bronze Age Hungary and NW Europe (about1800 BC):


HAJDUSAMSON (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKs4YfBKpOs)


Was this warrior elite a kind of "little Dzjengis Khans" responsible for an influx of new lines of R1b U106???

Bronze Age lines between Hungary and NW Europe:
https://www.mupload.nl/img/pwp2uxn1.png

Trelvern
10-17-2018, 06:48 AM
Hmm interesting... I only wish we got a bit more than just U106 - Z381 from Oostwoud man as he COULD be Z156 as that is the next level under Z381... and is dated to later than the Unetice man. Tumulus comes after (direct descendant?) of Unetice and Dr. Iain and I are looking at reasons for the collapse of the Unetice and movement Westward as there are Unetice in Germany I believe... Dr. Iain and I are very interested in Unetice man as he is positive to the SNP level S1900/S1894 and that is actually where Iain and I split... and then he goes his way (mainly Isles) and I go my way in S4004 which is mainly an Northern Isles group for now... and includes a possible local from Northern England or SW Scotland in the Gladiator from 200-300 AD 6drif-3 so we know it was there then ;-).


I got R-U106 S497 from Living DNA yesterday and i am close to RomanYork 6drif-3 too!
What do you think about this haplogroup?

Trelvern
10-17-2018, 06:50 AM
deleted

Bollox79
10-17-2018, 08:32 AM
I got R-U106 S497 from Living DNA yesterday and i am close to RomanYork 6drif-3 too!
What do you think about this haplogroup?

Trelvern,

I'm at work so can't really chat right now - but I'll get one when I'm home and tell you where to join the U106 yahoo forum and what I know about our U106 group and the list of ancient samples positive for U106 so far...

Cheers!

Wing Genealogist
10-17-2018, 09:39 AM
To join the U106 Yahoo forum group, you simply send an email to: [email protected] briefly stating why you want to join. You can mention you had tested S497 (which is also called Z306) through LivingDNA.

Virtually all of the experts on U106 and its subclades participate in this forum. In addition, U106 has a Google Docs spreadshett about the structure of U106, which can be found at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rpJP0Bt4qUQb9wWBFA7i1tLPV75ie_qS0iplwvvlVmQ/edit?usp=sharing

As far as I am aware, Living DNA has never released a list of the Y-SNPs it tests for, so we have no way of knowing whether they have any SNPs below Z306/S497 (and you are negative for them) or whether they simply don't test for any SNPs below that level. The vast majority of folks who are Z306/S497+ either belong to DF98 or DF96, but there are a relatively small number of folks who are Z306/S497+ but are negative for both DF98 & DF96.

Trelvern
10-17-2018, 10:08 AM
To join the U106 Yahoo forum group, you simply send an email to: [email protected] briefly stating why you want to join. You can mention you had tested S497 (which is also called Z306) through LivingDNA.

Virtually all of the experts on U106 and its subclades participate in this forum. In addition, U106 has a Google Docs spreadshett about the structure of U106, which can be found at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rpJP0Bt4qUQb9wWBFA7i1tLPV75ie_qS0iplwvvlVmQ/edit?usp=sharing

As far as I am aware, Living DNA has never released a list of the Y-SNPs it tests for, so we have no way of knowing whether they have any SNPs below Z306/S497 (and you are negative for them) or whether they simply don't test for any SNPs below that level. The vast majority of folks who are Z306/S497+ either belong to DF98 or DF96, but there are a relatively small number of folks who are Z306/S497+ but are negative for both DF98 & DF96.

It's very clear
Thank you!

Webb
10-18-2018, 01:03 PM
I got R-U106 S497 from Living DNA yesterday and i am close to RomanYork 6drif-3 too!
What do you think about this haplogroup?

I was secretly hoping your results would come back as DF27, I have noticed an increase in DF27 guys posting in the French subsection of the forum, but a result of U106 is very interesting.

Dewsloth
10-18-2018, 04:56 PM
99% of U106 is Z2265+> BY30097+ , I'm over here in the tiny group that is Z2265+> BY30097-along with the Rise 98 sample though our lines diverge after that. Lolland Dk is quite close to L.Beddinge Sweden


You are a throw back to the earliest U106 found to date my friend ;-).

Uintah106 is like the Coker family in DF19. Scroll all the way over to the right on this chart to see them:

http://www.ytree.net/DisplayTree.php?blockID=183

^^They are the only ones in DF19 that are neither DF88 nor Z302 -- two subclades that both probably existed in Beaker times, or if not, very early Bronze Age.

I think their family history is English, but supposed to originally come from the Cotentin, but that's not much help because they could still be Franks or Normans or just about anything else.

Sorry for the semi-OT -- DF19 isn't found anywhere at all until Roman Driffield when it's buried right next to U106...

Bollox79
10-19-2018, 07:42 AM
It's very clear
Thank you!

Trelvern sorry I didn't get back to you sooner - but Wing Genealogist is right so follow his instructions for joining our U106 yahoo forum!!!

Welcome to Z306! As Wing says that is ancestral (so upstream) of Z304 and then DF96 and DF98 - keep in mind DF98 is an SNP associated with the House of Wettin (but an old relationship - bronze age - DF98 was found in an Unetice sample from Jinonice near Prague) - Wettin's male kinship group ancestors and ours probably share some SNPs. Also the Bourbon line of French Kings (back to I think Louis XVI?) from three modern day descendants are all U106 and Z381 and very likely to be Z156 (which is up stream of Z306). Unfortunately they didn't test Z156 or SNPs below that for some reason, but they tested the other major SNPs under Z381... and the Bourbons were negative for them. Keep in mind though this is a very old relationship - Bronze Age etc.

For U106 we need more French testers... so once again welcome to the group - you can get testing advice at the forum or here... and get your French countrymen to test also!

Cheers,
Charlie