Page 91 of 176 FirstFirst ... 41818990919293101141 ... LastLast
Results 901 to 910 of 1753

Thread: Population genomics of the Viking world (bioxiv, 2019, Copenhagen)

  1. #901
    Registered Users
    Posts
    3,768
    Sex
    Location
    USA
    Ethnicity
    Italo-Iberian
    Nationality
    American
    Y-DNA (P)
    R1b-U152+L2+FGC10543
    mtDNA (M)
    H4a1-T152C!

    United States of America Italy 1861-1946 Spain
    VK147 R1b1a1b1a1a2 RM269>P312/S116>Z40481>ZZ11>DF27/S250>Z195/S355>Z272>BY907>F14113
    VK261 R1b1a1b1a1a2 P312
    VK273 R1b1a1b1a1a2 L2+
    Paternal: R1b-U152 >> L2 >> FGC10543 >> PR5365, Pietro Rocca, b. 1559, Agira, Sicily, Italy
    Maternal: H4a1-T152C!, Maria Coto, b. ~1864, Galicia, Spain
    Mother's Paternal: J1+ FGC4745/FGC4766+ PF5019+, Gerardo Caprio, b. 1879, Caposele, Avellino, Campania, Italy
    Father's Maternal: T2b-C150T, Francisca Santa Cruz, b.1916, Garganchon, Burgos, Spain
    Paternal Great (x3) Grandfather: R1b-U106 >> L48 >> CTS2509, Filippo Ensabella, b.~1836, Agira, Sicily, Italy

  2. The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to R.Rocca For This Useful Post:

     ADW_1981 (09-18-2020),  Agamemnon (09-18-2020),  Andour (09-18-2020),  Chad Rohlfsen (09-18-2020),  Dewsloth (09-18-2020),  evon (09-18-2020),  MitchellSince1893 (09-18-2020),  Onur Dincer (09-18-2020),  Principe (09-18-2020),  razyn (09-18-2020),  sktibo (09-18-2020)

  3. #902
    Junior Member
    Posts
    3
    Sex

    https://dna-explained.com/2020/09/18...-updates-here/

    VK40 forms a branch downstream of BY1701

  4. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Langaha For This Useful Post:

     Alain (09-18-2020),  evon (09-18-2020),  MitchellSince1893 (09-18-2020),  Onur Dincer (09-18-2020),  Principe (09-18-2020),  R.Rocca (09-18-2020)

  5. #903
    Registered Users
    Posts
    750
    Sex
    Location
    Waterville, ME
    Ethnicity
    Great Migration Colonists
    Nationality
    American
    Y-DNA (P)
    R1b-U106 (S10415)
    mtDNA (M)
    J1c2g (FMS)
    Y-DNA (M)
    I1a-P109 (23andMe)
    mtDNA (P)
    T2b3 (23andMe)

    United States Gadsden England Scotland Ireland Wales
    Quote Originally Posted by Revmac View Post
    Can anybody see what VK232 is positive for? Isn’t it something under Z2265? S19589?
    VK232 is not called at both Z2265 & S19589, but is BY30097- & A2150-
    Gedmatch DNA: M032736 Gedcom: 6613110.
    Gedmatch Genesis: WH4547538
    co-administrator: Y-DNA R-U106 Haplogroup Project

  6. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Wing Genealogist For This Useful Post:

     Revmac (09-18-2020),  uintah106 (09-18-2020)

  7. #904
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    258
    Sex
    Nationality
    Finnish
    Y-DNA (P)
    R1b-Z142
    mtDNA (M)
    H10g

    VK87 and VK166 have been added to YFull:

    https://yfull.com/tree/R-Z262/

    https://yfull.com/tree/R-Y30608/

  8. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to teepean47 For This Useful Post:

     Agamemnon (09-18-2020),  Dewsloth (09-18-2020),  JMcB (09-18-2020)

  9. #905
    Registered Users
    Posts
    247
    Sex
    Omitted
    Ethnicity
    British/Irish
    Y-DNA (P)
    R1a-CLD68
    mtDNA (M)
    H7
    mtDNA (P)
    K1a-195C

    England Scotland Ireland
    If anyone can check the calls for VK48 and VK205 I’d appreciate it. The former is allegedly under R1a-YP275 , the latter under R1a-CTS4179.

    YDNA likely journey simplified : Battle Axe Culture > Nordic Bronze Age > Scandinavian Iron Age > Norsemen > Scots > probably Somerled

    Ancestry: English, Scottish & Irish

  10. #906
    Registered Users
    Posts
    823
    Ethnicity
    Venetharum natio populosa
    Nationality
    Polish
    Y-DNA (P)
    R-L1029>YP263>Y2912*
    mtDNA (M)
    H,U5a1b1j(wife)

    Last edited by Waldemar; 09-18-2020 at 07:40 AM.

  11. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Waldemar For This Useful Post:

     Alain (09-18-2020),  Brent.B (09-18-2020),  JMcB (09-18-2020),  leonardo (09-18-2020)

  12. #907
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    4,610
    Sex
    Location
    Groningen
    Ethnicity
    SGC+TRB Creool
    Nationality
    NL
    Y-DNA (P)
    E-V22

    Netherlands
    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
    For the most part, most likely yes. But that's the point, it happened during the Viking Age and made the West of Norway (probably) somewhat more British-like.
    Right, we have potential Saami relatives and we have Viking Age admixture, which we even know from historical sources.
    I wouldn't say recently, but probably around the introduction of iron, which I would assume was causal for the spread of Germanic beyond its original borders, possibly pushed by early Celts and Illyrians, influenced by both during the formation of the Jastorf culture. Basically I would assume a similar situation like in Southern Germanic areas later: There was an earlier Indo-European group in Scandinavia, and somewhere between the formatoin of the Nordic Bronze Age and the introduction of Iron Germanic came in afterwards, beginning to push on into Scandinavia and spreading in particular, but not exclusively, I1 and R1b-U106, together with subclades of R1a and others of R1b, including minority elements from the South East (brought in via Celtic and Illyrian mainly). These early Germanics pushed on, with the earlier inhabitants evading them, by moving into harder to access terrain, as long as possible. Basically repeating the same thing, once more, which happened when Corded Ware landed there first.
    So I would assume that both the early Indo-European wave (Corded Ware and derivatives), as well as the later early Germanics had a stronger impact on the open, fertile plain zones, while the retreating earlier groups moved towards the mountainous zones. The Western coastal zone was already a refuge for the foragers long before that. Its just logical, or at least possible, it had the same function later for the already mostly Corded Ware and Bell Beaker derived locals when the new Germanics came.



    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geogra..._mountains.png

    Note the Alpine mountain zone of Norway and the climatic split. The East of Norway was easy to access from Denmark and Sweden, its the same habitat and hard to defend, the West much less so.
    So I'd assume that early Germanic colonists were breaking through later to the West than to the East and assimilated a larger portion of locals than in the open zone, so suitable for cattle breeders. Whatever came into Scandinavia, it came to Western Norway the least, be it Neolithics, Corded Ware, Bronze, Iron or the Germanics. Of course, because of that its hard to say what was more important for the genetic and phenotypical differentiation, but everything considered, and looking at the uniparentals, the general Germanic and internal Germanic tribal differences later might have played in big time. Together with the different admixtures - Western Norway with Saami and British, Eastern Norway and Sweden more with Baltic Finns, Denmark more with continental Europeans. Everybody with the people which were closer and better connected with.
    I think like so often, its possible that these lineages entered the Scandinavian gene pool numerous times from multiple (North and East) directions. Every single lineage should have to be researched on its own.
    I don't know if your basic assumptions are quite right. Germanic is 'just' a label that was a product of and vis a vis the Roman world. It's a 'cultural label'. To talk about Germanics before the iron age is nonsense.

    Is beneath the label a shared ancestry, a common ancestry? Only partly. Partly not because from the Lofoten to Lüneberg there was no common 'Germanic nucleus'.

    Partly yes but then we have to define wat was in essence Germanic genetics, then we must define the specific 'Germanic drift'. I guess the Saxon and Bavarian/Elb Germanic samples are then the departure point. Because they were most connected with Jastorf and the Roman/migration time Germanics. IMO the North German Germanic tribes of migration time can be seen as the 'Germanic' genetic nucleus (although this stays partly artificial). Davidski did such a thing in G vs C PCA.

    We will see from the samples how close the 'Viking samples' will come to the Germanic drift. We already have the Iceland Viking samples and the Sigtuna samples so partly they will group around the two orientations.

    But in G25 and G v C there is still a lack in specific Danish (Viking) samples. I'm curious were they will end. In the modern Danish samples there is some split some come close to the Saxons (2) and the other 2 have more EEF or Med mix and plot more southern.....

    We will see, may be the pc of Davidski is already smoking now
    Last edited by Finn; 09-18-2020 at 08:15 AM.

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to Finn For This Useful Post:

     evon (09-18-2020)

  14. #908
    Registered Users
    Posts
    282
    Sex
    Location
    Auvergne, France
    Ethnicity
    Arvern
    Nationality
    French
    Y-DNA (P)
    R-L2-DF103/FGC4183
    mtDNA (M)
    H1bm

    European Union France
    You guys should take a look at this post : https://anthrogenica.com/showthread....l=1#post701223

    And click the link --> List of Viking samples, with dates, locations, Y-dna (shorthand) and mtdna.

    (I could copy/paste it here myself, but I'd hate to get the credits for something that isn't mine.)
    Last edited by Andour; 09-18-2020 at 08:20 AM.
    Immi uiros rios toutias rias

  15. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Andour For This Useful Post:

     Agamemnon (09-18-2020),  Alain (09-18-2020),  alan (09-21-2020),  angscoire (09-18-2020),  Kelso (09-18-2020),  Revmac (09-18-2020),  Wing Genealogist (09-18-2020)

  16. #909
    Registered Users
    Posts
    862
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by CopperAxe View Post
    What do you guys make of the suggestion that Swedes only have 10-30% ancestry from these viking era svears, the rest coming from Danish and some other southern sources?
    On the one hand that's absolute nonsense, but on the other it depends on the reference on both sides and the model you use. Which Vikings, which modern Swedish sample. Generally speaking its a ridiculous, propagandistic and ideologically driven claim.

    Quote Originally Posted by Granary View Post
    I'm not against this theory per se, in fact I think it's a bit too ambitious to say that Germanic was all over Southern Scandinavia since the Battle Axe culture or since the first evidence of Steppe ancestry and that there is complete and simple linguistic continuity to this day, on the other hand I think the introduction of iron is a tad bit too late and I would place the start of the spread a bit closer to the Nordic Bronze Age period.
    I'm largely undecided on this and the Nordic Bronze Age is surely a highly important phase, but only more ancient DNA samples will prove to us how the relations to Unetice and the Carpathian region were, if there were clearly defined tribes and subpopulations, or whether there was any kind of larger scale immigration in the Iron Age. So while its possible the process began in the Bronze Age, the decisive moment could have been the Iron Age transition, leading to the expansion of people from the core zone to the relative South into Scandinavia proper, including Norway - with the push being different between the East and the West of this country.

    I say this on the base of the deep Germanic influence in both Baltic Finnic and Saami, which to me implies at least a Germanic presence around Svealand almost immediately after the Akozino-Malar archeological signal, so I think Germanic as we know it must have spread in southern Sweden between Svealand and Skane at least around the late Bronze Age and I think that we can imagine a plausible chronology from 1500(or 1000) BCE to 500 BCE to explain the spread of at least Germanic-like varieties from the core Nordic Bronze Age region(basically Denmark+ province of Skane) to at least the Baltic coast of Southern Sweden.
    This theory says nothing about what happened to Norway during the same period, maybe the local Corded Ware derived IE language(s) survived until the early pre-Roman iron age or maybe the Nordic Bronze Age already saw early branches Germanic spread there but diverge through isolation and replaced by North Germanic afterwards, without the evidence Saami and Finnic provides I don't think even the best genetic evidence could really tell.
    Its also possible that the Nordic Bronze Age as a whole was already Proto-Germanic, but that during the Iron Age transition there was an expansion from the more Southern nucleus of the transformation. There are, actually, quite a lot of possibilities, which makes this so difficult without more genetic data.

    Also rather than saying the natives would have evaded the new arrivals, I think it's better to simply speak in strictly geographical terms. I'm not by any means discounting or ruling away violence, it's just that I'm not sure people would have consciously migrated away into worse geographical regions, rather people already living in worse geographical regions would have survived longer as separate populations.
    Both is possible, but is a common practise of the defeated to try to flee to better to defend zones or those which the conquerors are less interested in. This is just common all over the world, I could bring forward a long list of examples. We don't know if that was the case here, but it would be even strange if not at all. And, what's even more, for a people in Norway, if someone came from the South, there was only one logical direction, West and North.

    Quote Originally Posted by Finn View Post
    I don't know if your basic assumptions are quite right. Germanic is 'just' a label that was a product of and vis a vis the Roman world. It's a 'cultural label'. To talk about Germanics before the iron age is nonsense.
    Its not, because you need a people which spoke a dialect which led to Germanic and which led to the specific cultural and genetic profile Germanics had. So its not like if you could travel back in time, you couldn't see that some people were simply closer to and the ancestors of later Germanics, while others were not. I'm speaking about the "evolutionary tree", whether you name it Germanic or not is open to debate, but it doesn't change anything.

    Partly yes but then we have to define wat was in essence Germanic genetics, then we must define the specific 'Germanic drift'.
    I'm waiting for more samples from the Bronze Age transition, Jastorf culture and early, clearly Germanic cultures. The only right way to solve this is the same as with Proto-Indo-Europeans: Check which local burial group fits the profile genetically and culturally. Once we have found this group, and it will be possible, if the research wants to, we have what "the Germanic nucleus" is about. The Iron Age is crucial in this respect for the North, with that I don't mean Proto-Germanic was absent from the North before, but this is the reference, the starting point. Anything before or after could be different, even the transition to the Iron Age might be peculiar, because my assumption is that Proto-Germanics were almost overrun by Celts and Illyrians, but finally managed, while integrating some of the incoming Iron Age people, to retain their own identity and form a new nucleus which spread from then on, first to the North, later against their former masters, the Celts to the South and other people in the east and South East. So the decisive moment is when the local Iron Age culture with its own characteristics was fully established. That's for me the safe base, from which everything else can be evaluated.
    Like the Western Sredny Stog/Dereivka derivatives in the Ukraine being the secure base for the expansion of Proto-Indo-European to the West and South. Here its presumably, unless there is a huge surprise and later replacement, the Jastorf Culture from which everything before and afterwards must be evaluated and compared with. The Iron Age transition is really essential for everything, because that's the reference, when the Iron Age stabilised itself in the core Germanic regions known from historical sources and archaeological excavations. With this reference we can move forth and backwards in time, and compare how this profile came up genetically and into what it transformed later on. We can also compare regions, like if the typical Iron Age profile was not in Western Norway early on, but a different people lived there, with which the Germanics of the nucleus only later mixed, this would prove my hypothesis. If not, it would refute it. Simple as that. I'm happy with both, I just want to know it and write about what I think is possible or even likely.
    At first I would really like to know the path and early distribution of R1b-U106 and I1. That's like the most rudimentary base. So far both is unresolved.
    Last edited by Riverman; 09-18-2020 at 09:10 AM.

  17. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Riverman For This Useful Post:

     Bygdedweller (09-18-2020),  etrusco (09-18-2020),  Revmac (09-18-2020),  uintah106 (09-18-2020)

  18. #910
    Registered Users
    Posts
    129
    Sex
    Location
    Finland, Pohjois-Pohjanmaa
    Ethnicity
    Finn
    Nationality
    Finnish

    VK531 fits neatly to the Slate culture (skiffenkulturen).

Page 91 of 176 FirstFirst ... 41818990919293101141 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-11-2019, 07:20 PM
  2. Ethics in Studies of Population Genomics
    By Eвa in forum General
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 07-03-2018, 12:09 AM
  3. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-12-2018, 10:12 PM
  4. A female Viking warrior confirmed by genomics
    By JMcB in forum Archaeology (Prehistory)
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 09-30-2017, 02:03 PM
  5. A female Viking warrior confirmed by genomics
    By Helgenes50 in forum French
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-11-2017, 03:44 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •