DF99 (P312>DF99)

[Theconqueror]

vk336 seems more diverse than vk369

Target VK2020_DNK_Sealand_VA:VK369 VK2020_SWE_Oland_VA:VK336
Distance 0.00079225 0.00034752
AZE_Caucasus_lowlands_LC 0 0.2
Baltic_LTU_Late_Antiquity_low_res 0 0.6
Bell_Beaker_England 0 0.2
Bell_Beaker_England_EBA 0 1.4
Bell_Beaker_Iberia 0 2.8
Bell_Beaker_ITA 0 1
Bell_Beaker_NLD 0 0.8
CHE_EBA 0 2.6
CZE_Starounetice_EBA 0.4 0
DEU_LBK_HBS 0 3.6
DEU_MA_ACD 0 1.6
DOM_southeast_Ceramic 0 0.8
England_CA_EBA 0 0.2
England_Saxon 0 9.8
FRA_BA 0 5
FRA_IA 0 0.6
GRC_Minoan_Odigitria_low_res 1 0.2
HUN_Lengyel_LN 0 3.6
HUN_MA_Szolad 0 0.2
Iberia_Central_BA 0 0.6
Iberia_Menorca_LBA 0.2 0.8
Iberia_N 0.4 0
Iberia_Northeast_MLN 0.6 0
Iberia_Southeast_c.10-16CE 0 2.2
IRN_Tepe_Hissar_C 0 0.2
ITA_Collegno_MA 2 1.4
ITA_Rome_Imperial 0 0.4
ITA_Sardinia_EBA 0 2.6
ITA_Sardinia_MA 0.2 0
Levant_Ashkelon_IA2 0 0.2
Levant_Baqah_BA 0 0.6
Levant_Natufian 0.4 0
MAR_Taforalt 0.2 0
RUS_Afanasievo 0 0.4
RUS_Alan_MA 0.8 3.4
RUS_Sintashta_MLBA 0 1.4
Scotland_Megalithic 0 0.6
SWE_LN_low_res 0 3.4
SWE_Viking_Age_Sigtuna 1.2 0
TUR_Camlibel_Tarlasi_LC 0 0.6
TUR_Ikiztepe_LC 0 0.4
TUR_Kaman-Kalehoyuk_MLBA 0 0.8
TUR_Tell_Kurdu_EC 0 1.2
UKR_Trypillia 0 9.4
VK2020_DNK_Jutland_VA 0 1
VK2020_DNK_Sealand_VA 85 0
VK2020_England_Dorset_VA 0 6
VK2020_England_Oxford_VA 0.2 0
VK2020_Faroes_EM 4 2.8
VK2020_NOR_Mid_MA 0.8 3.6
VK2020_NOR_South_VA 0 1
VK2020_Scotland_Orkney_VA 2 0
VK2020_SWE_Gotland_VA 0.6 4.6
VK2020_SWE_Oland_EVA 0 9.8
VK2020_SWE_Oland_VA 0 3.2
VK2020_SWE_Skara_VA 0 2
VUT_2900BP_all 0 0.2

[Frithnanth]

... All in all, DF99 is Germanic.

How can we be sure about this? Two of the ancient DF99 samples had substantial southern ancestry. CL94's DNA was roughly 2/3 southern european and (as stated by Roaring) VK336 seems to have strong southern admixture.

With DF99's current presence in Italy, why can't we suppose that this marker was spread from some italian or alpine tribe?

[Theconqueror]

How can we be sure about this? Two of the ancient DF99 samples had substantial southern ancestry. CL94's DNA was roughly 2/3 southern european and (as stated by Roaring) VK336 seems to have strong southern admixture.

With DF99's current presence in Italy, why can't we suppose that this marker was spread from some italian or alpine tribe?

I am not sure of anything. I had posted some analysis of CL94 and the individual is not that southern. Furthermore, it is hard to put DF99 in the alps during that timeframe. The individuals found in the south were in line with north-south migrations culturally (lombards, etc). The northern individuals come from cultures with probably no southern intakes. When I say germanic, I don't mean nordic but it seems plausible that at least some sub-clades followed a north-south path. My 2 cents.

[GoldenHind]

How can we be sure about this? Two of the ancient DF99 samples had substantial southern ancestry. CL94's DNA was roughly 2/3 southern european and (as stated by Roaring) VK336 seems to have strong southern admixture.

With DF99's current presence in Italy, why can't we suppose that this marker was spread from some italian or alpine tribe?

I think it is extremely difficult to explain what we currently know about the distribution of DF99 with an expansion point in northern Italy or the Alpine area. There is a very strong north-south cline of DF99 in Italy. It is most common in the far north, and becomes very scarce south of Tuscany. Meanwhile it extends north from northern Italy through Germany all the way up to Scandinavia. If it originated in northern Italy, it seems it only expanded in one direction. Also no DF99 was found in the recent study of ancient DNA in Rome. It would also be difficult to explain the relatively strong presence of DF99 in England compared to its relative scarcity in Wales, Scotland and Ireland. I am not aware of any large population movement from Italy or the Alpine area northwards to Scandinavia and England.

However all of this is consistent with a spread of DF99 from from northern Europe with various Germanic tribes during the Migration Age, including Alemanni into Switzerland, Lombards and Ostrogoths etc. into Italy and Anglo-Saxons into England.

That being said, we know very little about population movement within Europe during the Bronze Age. The amber trade connected the Baltic area with various areas in Europe, and there were probably more trade routes involved with the production of salt and copper mining. I certainly wouldn't rule out the possibility that some DF99 may have been present in northern Italy or the Alpine area long before the beginning of the Migration Age. If so, I suspect it is probably the exception rather than the rule.

As Theconqueror says, we can't really be sure of anything at this point, and I think it is wise not to be dogmatic based on the limited data currently available. More DF99 samples from ancient DNA will certainly provide important clues and probably even some surprises.

[Telfermagne]

I really want to know who the German & unknown origin fellows are who run parallel to me on the tree. All three of us are FT49882, but they have downstream Z34586 whereas I do not. I didn't spy either fellow in the project at FTDNA.

[GoldenHind]

I really want to know who the German & unknown origin fellows are who run parallel to me on the tree. All three of us are FT49882, but they have downstream Z34586 whereas I do not. I didn't spy either fellow in the project at FTDNA.

I wish I knew their identity as well. I can confirm neither is in the DF99 Project at FTDNA. As you have no doubt seen, they share an additional 12 SNPs beyond FT49882. It would be very helpful to at least know the location in Germany of his EKA,

There are several unidentified DF99+ men who have done the Big Y but aren't in the project. That includes an American of unknown origin who shares 13 SNPs with VK369 from the Viking era study. I suspect they don't know the significance of DF99 in the sequence of their markers.

[Telfermagne]

What clade of DF99 is VK369? I can't find him on the Block tree at FTDNA.

[GoldenHind]

What clade of DF99 is VK369? I can't find him on the Block tree at FTDNA.

VK369 (Sealand, Denmark) is DF99>FGC847>FGC7556>FT108043 (plus 12 more SNPs).

VK336 (Oland, Sweden) is DF99>S16982>S16136>FGC16979>>FGC55515>BY106906.

Neither is included on FTDNA's block tree, but the American who matches VK369 is listed.

[Theconqueror]

Concerning Mokrin:

The likely origin of the Maros culture / EBA group population was recently described by Bertemes & Heyd (2015):

(…) the beginnings of the east-Austrian Leitha and Unterwölbling groups (and the Early Maros Culture) must be set one or two generations earlier than the beginning of the Straubing group, for example. In turn, the novelties defining the Danubian EBA arrive in Singen and central Switzerland a further one or two generations later than in Straubing.

Due to its distribution over three countries (Hungary, Romania, Serbia), its long duration of c. 500 years, and the early discovery of both graves and settlement sites, this culture/group is known by several terms and names, such as Perjámos, Periam, and Maros/Mures¸, and is sometimes combined with the neighbouring so-called Ada group. In order to avoid further confusion, we will refer to it as the “Early Maros Culture”.

(…) there is, in the cultural entity of the Early Maros Culture, a kind of regional exclave of the Danubian EBA in south-eastern Hungary/ south-western Romania/northern Serbia, far outside its core area north of the Alps. The arrangement of the cemeteries, the burials and burial customs, and the material culture found at sites such as Sándorfalva-Eperjes, co. Csongrád (Hungary; Trogmayer 2001) and Kiskundorozsma-Hosszúhát-halom near Szeged, co. Csongrád (Hungary; Bende/ Lörinczy 2002), complemented by the earliest graves in the cemetery of Mokrin (Wagner 2009), are in the initial phases so interchangeable with those of the Burgenland and Lower Austria (already recognised by Fischl/Kulcsár 2o11) that one starts to wonder how this can possibly be so. It is all the more astonishing since these cemeteries start suddenly, without any regional predecessors. Likewise, there are no similar cemeteries and isolated burials in the several hundred kilometres in-between, in territory which is occupied by a different EBA complex, the Nagyrév group (Vollmann 2005).

Finally, no real Bell Beaker substrate in this part of Hungary/Romania, beyond some isolated finds (Heyd 2oo7a; Dani/Tóth 2014), has ever been documented. This leaves us with only one realistic assumption: that prehistoric peoples, probably of a Leitha and/or Unterwölbling group background, emigrated along the Danube River to the south and settled here in a foreign territory, probably at the time of the initial Danubian EBA. But why this migration took place around 2200 BC remains totally unknown. Was it due to demographic pressure? Was it due to a subsistence crisis? Or were these even refugees from the communities of the Bell Beaker cemeteries around Budapest, whose settlement sites soon after became part of the Nagyrév group (Endrödi 2014, 270–272)? We don’t have answers yet but better data on the why and how could surely be provided by bio-archaeological investigations which have not yet been undertaken.

[R.Rocca]

I think it is extremely difficult to explain what we currently know about the distribution of DF99 with an expansion point in northern Italy or the Alpine area. There is a very strong north-south cline of DF99 in Italy. It is most common in the far north, and becomes very scarce south of Tuscany. Meanwhile it extends north from northern Italy through Germany all the way up to Scandinavia. If it originated in northern Italy, it seems it only expanded in one direction. Also no DF99 was found in the recent study of ancient DNA in Rome. It would also be difficult to explain the relatively strong presence of DF99 in England compared to its relative scarcity in Wales, Scotland and Ireland. I am not aware of any large population movement from Italy or the Alpine area northwards to Scandinavia and England.

However all of this is consistent with a spread of DF99 from from northern Europe with various Germanic tribes during the Migration Age, including Alemanni into Switzerland, Lombards and Ostrogoths etc. into Italy and Anglo-Saxons into England.

That being said, we know very little about population movement within Europe during the Bronze Age. The amber trade connected the Baltic area with various areas in Europe, and there were probably more trade routes involved with the production of salt and copper mining. I certainly wouldn't rule out the possibility that some DF99 may have been present in northern Italy or the Alpine area long before the beginning of the Migration Age. If so, I suspect it is probably the exception rather than the rule.

As Theconqueror says, we can't really be sure of anything at this point, and I think it is wise not to be dogmatic based on the limited data currently available. More DF99 samples from ancient DNA will certainly provide important clues and probably even some surprises.

I wouldn't be so quick to use the high modern day frequency of DF99 in northern Italy as a point of origin. Brother clade U152 is found in frequencies as high as 70% in some Alpine passages in northern Italy. However, in the ancient DNA record, U152 accounted for almost all of the Bell Beaker R1b from Southern Germany all the way to Hungary. The Bell Beaker skeletons from Italy that have been radiocarbon dated are younger than the ones from Central Europe.