Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Revised age for Rise98

  1. #1
    Registered Users
    Posts
    656
    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

    Revised age for Rise98

    According to Fornander 2013 (found at: http://www.archaeology.su.se/polopol...er.JONAS18.pdf) Table 1 (page 19) Grave 49 South Skeleton (Rise 98) was radiocarbon dated 3860 +/- 60 (from Ahlstrom 2009:172).

    This puts the estimated date to 1970 - 1850 BC, which is considerably more recent than dates seen elsewhere.

    It definitely does merit looking back into some of the earlier papers, and not simply relying on what is reported in the DNA papers.


    EDIT: I forgot about the fact radiocarbon dating needs to be calibrated. Using the Online CalPal http://www.calpal-online.de/cgi-bin/quickcal.pl this converts to 2431-2238 BCE. Thus the remains are actually slightly OLDER than what was originally reported.
    Last edited by Wing Genealogist; 08-25-2019 at 09:38 PM. Reason: calibrating radiocarbon dating to calendar dating
    Gedmatch DNA: M032736 Gedcom: 6613110.
    Gedmatch Genesis: WH4547538
    co-administrator: Y-DNA R-U106 Haplogroup Project

  2. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Wing Genealogist For This Useful Post:

     Bollox79 (08-26-2019),  Heron (08-27-2019),  JMcB (08-25-2019),  Osiris (08-28-2019),  Radboud (08-26-2019),  Revmac (08-28-2019),  uintah106 (08-29-2019),  Webb (08-29-2019)

  3. #2
    Registered Users
    Posts
    843
    Sex
    Location
    Pennsylvania, USA
    Ethnicity
    NW European/Celto-Germani
    Nationality
    American
    Y-DNA (P)
    R1b-U106-DF98
    mtDNA (M)
    T2b2bIrish/Scan

    Ireland Scotland Germany Canada England Northern Ireland
    Quote Originally Posted by Wing Genealogist View Post
    According to Fornander 2013 (found at: http://www.archaeology.su.se/polopol...er.JONAS18.pdf) Table 1 (page 19) Grave 49 South Skeleton (Rise 98) was radiocarbon dated 3860 +/- 60 (from Ahlstrom 2009:172).

    This puts the estimated date to 1970 - 1850 BC, which is considerably more recent than dates seen elsewhere.

    It definitely does merit looking back into some of the earlier papers, and not simply relying on what is reported in the DNA papers.


    EDIT: I forgot about the fact radiocarbon dating needs to be calibrated. Using the Online CalPal http://www.calpal-online.de/cgi-bin/quickcal.pl this converts to 2431-2238 BCE. Thus the remains are actually slightly OLDER than what was originally reported.
    I'll update my aDNA list for RISE 98 - I'm waiting till the raw data has been released for the Viking paper before I start adding those samples... that will take a while to dig up papers on each site!
    Y-DNA: 4th GGF Adam Weaver born 1785 in Pennsylvania (most likely German) - Sergeant, US 17th Inf, War of 1812: R1b-U106-Z381-Z156-Z305/306/307-Z304-DF98-S1911-S1894/S1900-S4004/FGC14818/FGC14823-FGC14816/FGC14817 shared with 6drif-3!

    mtDNA: 3rd GGM Bridget Dana b. 1843 Ireland - T2b2b - Pagan Migrant Icelander SSG-A3 (grave 4?) - Sílastaðir in Eyjafjarðarsýsla, North Iceland is T2b2b. Relative of King Bela III of Hungary (his Y-DNA and autosomal kinsman buried near him had mtDNA T2b2b1)!

  4. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Bollox79 For This Useful Post:

     Dewsloth (08-28-2019),  JMcB (08-28-2019)

  5. #3
    Registered Users
    Posts
    656
    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
    The more I study radiocarbon dating, the more complicated it gets. Using a calculator such as CalPal (mentioned in my initial post) almost certainly ends up being overly simplistic and doesn't adequately address many of the subtleties.

    It is quite possible even the experts don't always agree on how to convert the raw C14 date into a calibrated "calendar" date. In the end, the dates provided by the papers are all estimates anyways, so trying to refine the dates is basically making much ado about nothing.
    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:

     Bollox79 (08-28-2019),  JMcB (09-01-2019)

  7. #4
    Registered Users
    Posts
    656
    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
    I have done some more digging regarding the 14C dating of RISE98. RISE98 is one of 6 bodies found in grave 49 at Lilla Beddinge. This mass grave held 3 adults, 2 infants and 1 juvenile (originally believed to be 3 adults & 2 juveniles). According to the Allentoft 2015 paper https://media.nature.com/original/na...re14507-s1.pdf Supplemental Table 1, RISE98 was the Southern most adult.

    Fornander 2013 http://www.archaeology.su.se/polopol...er.JONAS18.pdf listed a table of radiocarbon dated results on page 17, which was copied from an earlier paper from Torbjörn Ahlström (2009:172). While the chart is somewhat blurred, it can be seen where the "L. Bedinge {sic} Gr 49 S skeleton" was dated to be a bit earlier than the Gr 49 N skeleton.

    The table in Fornander does show vertical lines for calibrated dates in 500 year increments. It documents where Gr 49 S skeleton did cross the 2500 calBC line while the Gr 49 N did not. Also, the Gr 49 S dating did not come near the 2000 calBC line, while the Gr 49 N dating did. Finally, further details appear in Table 1 (page 19) of this paper. It gives the 14C date BP for Grave 49 North skeleton (Lab ID Ua-19471) as 3790 +/-65 with the Grave 49 South skeleton (Lab ID Ua-19470) as 3860 +/-60.

    The Allentoft 2015 paper gave the 14C date for RISE98 (Lab ID OxA-28987) as 3736 +/- 32 BC (cal BC date 2275-2032).

    What gives with this conflicting information? Was the RISE98 remains 14C tested twice (by different labs) or did Allentoft err in the 14C results for RISE98? The chart in Fornander (from Ahlström) did show a smaller date spread (? 1 sigma) and a larger date spread (?2 sigma) and is it possible Allentoft was using the 1 sigma date spread (even though the paper clearly stated it was using the 2 sigma date spread) while Fornander used the 2 sigma spread? It also appears Allentoft may have erroneously used the more recent (Northern) remains rather than the more ancient (Southern) remains.

    Can anyone give me a link to the Ahlström 2009 paper, as well as any sources which confirm the identity of RISE98 with the Southern body in Grave 49 at Lilla Beddinge?
    Last edited by Wing Genealogist; 09-01-2019 at 02:50 PM. Reason: Added in 2 sigma date spread reported by Allentoft
    Gedmatch DNA: M032736 Gedcom: 6613110.
    Gedmatch Genesis: WH4547538
    co-administrator: Y-DNA R-U106 Haplogroup Project

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

     Bollox79 (09-03-2019),  JMcB (09-01-2019),  Radboud (09-01-2019)

  9. #5
    Registered Users
    Posts
    21
    Ethnicity
    Human
    Y-DNA (P)
    R1b-U106 (A2150)

    United States of America United Kingdom Ireland Cornwall Norway
    Is this what you are looking for?

    https://lup.lub.lu.se/search/publication/1418677

    I found a google scholar link to this book by Torbjorn Ahlstrom. It was referenced on a paper titled Dead and Buried? Variation in post-mortem histories revealed through histotaphonomic characterization of human bone from megalithic graves in Sweden: by HI Holland. If not Lund University has contact info for him on his page there. I cannot access the text of the book though.

    I think the Fornander paper lists Underjordiska Dodsriken by T Ahlstrom in its references. However, I translated that to English (Dead and Buried? don’t know if that’s correct) and could only find that paper written by HI Hollund. The Hollund paper(?) lists Torbjorn Ahlstrom in its references as well and has the google scholar link I posted. Maybe it was translated by Hollund?
    Last edited by Revmac; 09-10-2019 at 06:49 PM.
    “Nought may endure but mutability” —Percy Bysshe Shelley

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to Revmac For This Useful Post:

     Wing Genealogist (09-10-2019)

  11. #6
    Registered Users
    Posts
    656
    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
    I am certain your link gives the details to the publication I was looking for. Unfortunately, it is in Swedish, and not available online.

    Looking at the chart on page 17 of Fornander 2013 http://www.archaeology.su.se/polopol...er.JONAS18.pdf there is enough of an overlap in the 14C dates to believe both adult bodies in the grave (and presumably all the kids bodies as well) were likely buried at the same time.

    We have three different 14C dates:
    Grave 49 North skeleton (Lab ID Ua-19471) as 3790 +/-65
    Grave 49 South skeleton (Lab ID Ua-19470) as 3860 +/-60
    Allentoft 2015 (Lab ID OxA-28987) as 3736 +/- 32 BC (cal BC date 2275-2032)

    The Ua lab is Tandem Laboratory, University of Uppsala, Sweden while the OxA lab is Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, University of Oxford, UK

    Allentoft certainly must have been aware of the previous 14C dating (as reported by Ahlström in his 2009 book as well as referenced by Fornander in his 2013 paper). However, it appears he had the sample undergo another round of 14C dating for his 2015 paper. WHY he did this, rather than simply report the earlier results is puzzling. Did he have any reason to suspect there was an issue with the prior lab test? Is the difference in results between the labs significant?
    Gedmatch DNA: M032736 Gedcom: 6613110.
    Gedmatch Genesis: WH4547538
    co-administrator: Y-DNA R-U106 Haplogroup Project

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to Wing Genealogist For This Useful Post:

     Finn (09-10-2019)

  13. #7
    Registered Users
    Posts
    21
    Ethnicity
    Human
    Y-DNA (P)
    R1b-U106 (A2150)

    United States of America United Kingdom Ireland Cornwall Norway
    So, the Ahlström citation is really from a book of his written in Swedish; and not a “paper”? And that book was cited in all of the scientific papers discussed on this thread in relation to the Nordic Neolithic, Bronze Age, and rise98?

    And, Ahlström (at some other point: or just in his 2009 book?) published some kind of osteological analysis that is relevant or even authoritative to all of the Swedish samples in the Allentoft 2015 paper? Did Ahlström perform the dating or another part of the analysis?

    In Allentoft’s (2015) supplementary material—section 2—they state that of the 603 samples; “101 were selected for deeper sequencing”. And that “osteological analysis of the bones were performed specifically for the project on Scandinavian material. These were made by Lise Harvig on Danish material and Torbjorn Ahlström for Swedish material. For other regions existing osteological analyses was used”. If they didn’t use Ahlström’s 14C date what of his did they use?

    So do you think they could have used Ahlström as an authority—on something(?) obviously dealing with Sweden and osteology?—and independently 14C dated all those 101 samples they DNA sequenced regardless of their previous 14C datings? And some were 14C dated locally (and not at Oxford) like the Polish or German samples in “Supplementary Table 1”.

    Maybe they worried that only dating some samples and not others (previously tested) years after their initial 14C dating might raise skepticism? I guess what I am saying is; do you think that they could have tested them again just to be fair, and because they 14C dated all the other 101 samples that were further DNA sequenced?

    Or did they literally take the word of the (possibly also previous?) Polish and German 14C dates as more reliable than the Scandinavian ones that they seem to rely in some way on Ahlstrom for? Or were the 14C dates from the other labs done at the same time?

    Does anyone know what Ahlström’s book is about?

    The Hollund paper—though several years old—was definitely fascinating!
    “Nought may endure but mutability” —Percy Bysshe Shelley

  14. #8
    Registered Users
    Posts
    21
    Ethnicity
    Human
    Y-DNA (P)
    R1b-U106 (A2150)

    United States of America United Kingdom Ireland Cornwall Norway
    The 4th paragraph of section 2 in the supplementary material of Allentoft 2015 says this:

    “For the purpose of this paper, our 14C-dates have been used mainly as a check on contextual dating based on the archeology, but also to date samples with a less clear cultural context.”

    Maybe it was just to further clarify the cultural context?
    “Nought may endure but mutability” —Percy Bysshe Shelley

  15. #9
    Registered Users
    Posts
    656
    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
    So, the Ahlström citation is really from a book of his written in Swedish; and not a “paper”? And that book was cited in all of the scientific papers discussed on this thread in relation to the Nordic Neolithic, Bronze Age, and rise98?
    Ahlström is apparently regarded as THE expert in ancient Swedish remains and literally wrote the book on the subject. Both Allentoft and Fornander referenced Ahlström in their papers.

    And, Ahlström (at some other point: or just in his 2009 book?) published some kind of osteological analysis that is relevant or even authoritative to all of the Swedish samples in the Allentoft 2015 paper? Did Ahlström perform the dating or another part of the analysis?
    The 2009 book by Ahlström apparently detailed the osteological analysis of all of the ancient Swedish remains found up to that time. He did publish 14C dating of some of the remains in this book, but it is unknown if he directly ordered the test, or found where someone else ordered it.

    In Allentoft’s (2015) supplementary material—section 2—they state that of the 603 samples; “101 were selected for deeper sequencing”. And that “osteological analysis of the bones were performed specifically for the project on Scandinavian material. These were made by Lise Harvig on Danish material and Torbjorn Ahlström for Swedish material. For other regions existing osteological analyses was used”. If they didn’t use Ahlström’s 14C date what of his did they use?
    Allentoft's summaries of the Swedish remains almost certainly were based on information published in Ahlström's book.

    So do you think they could have used Ahlström as an authority—on something(?) obviously dealing with Sweden and osteology?—and independently 14C dated all those 101 samples they DNA sequenced regardless of their previous 14C datings? And some were 14C dated locally (and not at Oxford) like the Polish or German samples in “Supplementary Table 1”.

    Maybe they worried that only dating some samples and not others (previously tested) years after their initial 14C dating might raise skepticism? I guess what I am saying is; do you think that they could have tested them again just to be fair, and because they 14C dated all the other 101 samples that were further DNA sequenced?
    I don't know WHY Allentoft decided to re-submit some remains for another round of 14C dating. You may be right about this decision being made to have all of the 14C results being from the same lab. However, it still (to me at least) begs the question regarding how accurate & precise 14C dating is if it was felt necessary that all the results come from the same laboratory at the same time.

    Or did they literally take the word of the (possibly also previous?) Polish and German 14C dates as more reliable than the Scandinavian ones that they seem to rely in some way on Ahlstrom for? Or were the 14C dates from the other labs done at the same time?
    I really don't know

    Does anyone know what Ahlström’s book is about?
    I don't know exactly what this book was about, but it clearly was exhaustive (up to that point in time.)

    The Hollund paper—though several years old—was definitely fascinating!
    Gedmatch DNA: M032736 Gedcom: 6613110.
    Gedmatch Genesis: WH4547538
    co-administrator: Y-DNA R-U106 Haplogroup Project

  16. The Following User Says Thank You to Wing Genealogist For This Useful Post:

     Revmac (09-11-2019)

  17. #10
    Registered Users
    Posts
    656
    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
    The 4th paragraph of section 2 in the supplementary material of Allentoft 2015 says this:

    “For the purpose of this paper, our 14C-dates have been used mainly as a check on contextual dating based on the archeology, but also to date samples with a less clear cultural context.”

    Maybe it was just to further clarify the cultural context?
    I doubt it was simply for the reason to further clarify the cultural context, as the previous 14C dating would have accomplished this.
    Gedmatch DNA: M032736 Gedcom: 6613110.
    Gedmatch Genesis: WH4547538
    co-administrator: Y-DNA R-U106 Haplogroup Project

  18. The Following User Says Thank You to Wing Genealogist For This Useful Post:

     Revmac (09-11-2019)

Similar Threads

  1. S19589 Rise98, brothers?
    By uintah106 in forum R1b-U106
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-11-2018, 01:40 AM
  2. Change in haplogroup with nat geo revised?
    By jutland in forum Geno 2.0
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 01-29-2016, 05:29 AM
  3. Replies: 114
    Last Post: 01-26-2015, 04:25 PM
  4. Family Finder 'revised' algorithm
    By SC11 in forum Autosomal (auDNA)
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-28-2013, 04:29 AM

Posting Permissions

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