Page 11 of 29 FirstFirst ... 91011121321 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 281

Thread: Bohemia: Dynamic changes in genomic and social structures in 3rd millennium BCE centr

  1. #101
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    6,112
    Sex
    Location
    Groningen
    Ethnicity
    SGC+TRB Creool
    Nationality
    NL
    Y-DNA (P)
    E-V22
    Y-DNA (M)
    R1bU106/ DF96

    Netherlands
    Quote Originally Posted by anglesqueville View Post
    I went out of my way to repeat to Finn that it is always premature and abusive to interpret a diffusion map of an archaeological artefact in terms of population movements. This is particularly true of flint daggers, whose dissemination is above all significant in the dissemination of social ideals via commercial networks. It is really symptomatic that some here try by all means to deduce from the existence of such networks the existence of demic and genetic phenomena, while they are careful not to do the same when, in the second millennium, the evidence of contacts with Mediterranean cultures acquires the status of a major phenomenon. On the contrary, with regard to the Battle Axes, numerous archaeological studies, until recently, show that the transition, although real, was not dramatic, and includes a dimension of continuity with the indigenous cultures of the end of the Neolithic period. But it would be ridiculous to infer a reason to underestimate the impact of the Battle Axes in terms of population and genetics. This impact is indisputably proven by autosomal genetics, which attests that autosomal continuity with the Battle Axes is impressive, through the Iron Age and beyond, to modern times. For me, it is no exaggeration to say that the populations of Scandinavia are direct inheritors of the Battle Axes, and this is in a lesser measure true of those of Finland.
    To make it clear Angles that map consist of "groups" so of "populations". So no abuse at all.

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

     Hando (10-06-2021)

  3. #102
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    7,826
    Sex
    Location
    Normandy
    Ethnicity
    northwesterner
    Y-DNA (P)
    R-BY3604-Z275
    mtDNA (M)
    H5a1

    Normandie Orkney Netherlands Friesland East Frisia Finland
    Yeah ... I reread Prescott's study on the Neolithic transition in Norway again yesterday (1). Of course, he announces with insistence a migration, of which he sees the signs in the changes of tools and habitat. But between "signs" (which are by definition filtered by an interpretation) and "proofs", there is a step. When it comes to proofs, Prescott gets lost in general considerations on archaeological discourse, and on the intervention of new techniques (in particular genetic), for which he only gives outdated references which furthermore have no relation to the Danish-Norwegian context. Perhaps aware of the weakness of his argument, he ends it by qualifying it, by pointing out that this migration (of groups of Danish Beakers in Norway) could in any case only have been limited and local (because of the geography of Norway), and that if it is a necessary element in explaining the LN-EBA rupture, this element is by no means sufficient. Okay, so I'll be clear too: the only archaeological elements that can support a migratory hypothesis are 1) anthropological 2) isotopic, and this on the condition that they concern more than one individual (of course). I do not believe that anyone brought such elements in favour of migration of any Central European group in Scandinavia at the beginning of the Bronze (and even less later). If this is not the case for the Netherlands, I imagine you would have already pointed it out to us. With regard to autosomal genetics, I have already ad nauseam (like David on Eurogenes) published qpAdm models, carried out under all the necessary constraints, which demonstrate a continuity (close to the identity) between the individuals of the BAC whose we have, and those of the Iron Age, as well as modern samples. For the middle and final Bronze, the data are very poor, and it will be necessary to get better ones to verify that this continuity is also valid for this period. I don't have the slightest concern about it.

    (1) "The origin of a Bronze Age in Norway: structure, regional process and localized history" in "Local Societies in Bronze Age Northern Europe"
    En North alom, de North venom
    En North fum naiz, en North manom

    (Roman de Rou, Wace, 1160-1170)

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

     Bygdedweller (09-21-2021),  Hando (10-06-2021),  JMcB (09-21-2021),  Strider99 (09-22-2021)

  5. #103
    Registered Users
    Posts
    189
    Sex
    Location
    Eastern Norway
    Ethnicity
    Norwegian
    Y-DNA (P)
    R-Z19
    mtDNA (M)
    H4a

    Norway
    Quote Originally Posted by Standardized Ape View Post
    I tried modeling Swedes with Finno-centric references I had. Nothing here is picked to suit them in particular and probably some Atlantic elements gets lost.
    But to me it looks like HUN_MA_Szolad:SZ4 is the real Proto-Germanic speaking element while ber1m is the assimilated substrate. I have no bias here one way or the other. Maybe SZ4 has Battle Axe too, that I know not. It would make sense if it did I guess.



    I grabbed Finns coordinates and he's not that different from the Swedes, but he has a Baltic component on G25(closer to Balts and Finns than most Dutch) and some kind of Bell Beaker might be confused with Battle Axe.

    Target: Finn_scaled
    Distance: 2.6205% / 0.02620487 | R3P
    65.0 HUN_MA_Szolad:SZ4
    25.6 SWE_Battle_Axe:ber1M
    9.4 Baltic_EST_IA:s19_V10_2

    Nothing scientific here, just a little bit of data that can be interpreted to suit anyone's ideas.
    Completely unloaded question here (I know you added a qualifying statement at the end, so I don't mean to over-interpret your model), but I'm curious why you chose SZ4 in particular? I find it interesting because it was considered an extreme isotopic outlier in the context of the burials at Szólad, and it also happens to fall under R-Z372, similar to VK418, with both also overlapping a great deal autosomally from what I can tell.

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to Bygdedweller For This Useful Post:

     Hando (10-06-2021)

  7. #104
    Registered Users
    Posts
    380
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Bygdedweller View Post
    Completely unloaded question here (I know you added a qualifying statement at the end, so I don't mean to over-interpret your model), but I'm curious why you chose SZ4 in particular? I find it interesting because it was considered an extreme isotopic outlier in the context of the burials at Szólad, and it also happens to fall under R-Z372, similar to VK418, with both also overlapping a great deal autosomally from what I can tell.
    Although I may not have tried every single ancient Germanic, I thought it works best as a source for West Finns without having any kind of admixture like RISE174 and VK418 which also work.

  8. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Standardized Ape For This Useful Post:

     Bygdedweller (09-21-2021),  Hando (10-06-2021)

  9. #105
    Registered Users
    Posts
    653
    Sex
    Ethnicity
    Assyrian
    Y-DNA (P)
    G1a
    mtDNA (M)
    I5b1

    Sweden
    Quote Originally Posted by Bygdedweller View Post
    Not sure the autosomal continuity can be measured at such a fine-scale level using PCA, but I'm by no means an expert. The models angles have produced with qpAdm do show that there is a fair bit of overlap between Battle Axe and IA/modern Scandinavians. Interpreting what this means is probably out of reach with the current data. I think there can be little doubt that you need subsequent movements to explain the P312 and U106, and maybe the I1-M253 too, but that there is some continuity from Battle Axe-culture is not controversial in the least in my opinion. Battle Axe-derived (probably) subclades does show up in Norse Viking age-elites, so it's not like that became an altogether subjugated segment of the population or something. From what source the proto-Germanic element came is more complicated, but probably we're talking about a more southern origin in that case (in my opinion).
    I think we'll surely be able to model modern day Scandinavians equally well or even better when we get Danish Single Graves samples of decent quality.
    Regarding I-M253, there's way too high diversity of I-M253 in Denmark for it to have been a Battle Axe marker IMO.

  10. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Helves For This Useful Post:

     Bygdedweller (09-21-2021),  Hando (10-06-2021)

  11. #106
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    6,112
    Sex
    Location
    Groningen
    Ethnicity
    SGC+TRB Creool
    Nationality
    NL
    Y-DNA (P)
    E-V22
    Y-DNA (M)
    R1bU106/ DF96

    Netherlands
    Quote Originally Posted by anglesqueville View Post
    Yeah ... I reread Prescott's study on the Neolithic transition in Norway again yesterday (1). Of course, he announces with insistence a migration, of which he sees the signs in the changes of tools and habitat. But between "signs" (which are by definition filtered by an interpretation) and "proofs", there is a step. When it comes to proofs, Prescott gets lost in general considerations on archaeological discourse, and on the intervention of new techniques (in particular genetic), for which he only gives outdated references which furthermore have no relation to the Danish-Norwegian context. Perhaps aware of the weakness of his argument, he ends it by qualifying it, by pointing out that this migration (of groups of Danish Beakers in Norway) could in any case only have been limited and local (because of the geography of Norway), and that if it is a necessary element in explaining the LN-EBA rupture, this element is by no means sufficient. Okay, so I'll be clear too: the only archaeological elements that can support a migratory hypothesis are 1) anthropological 2) isotopic, and this on the condition that they concern more than one individual (of course). I do not believe that anyone brought such elements in favour of migration of any Central European group in Scandinavia at the beginning of the Bronze (and even less later). If this is not the case for the Netherlands, I imagine you would have already pointed it out to us. With regard to autosomal genetics, I have already ad nauseam (like David on Eurogenes) published qpAdm models, carried out under all the necessary constraints, which demonstrate a continuity (close to the identity) between the individuals of the BAC whose we have, and those of the Iron Age, as well as modern samples. For the middle and final Bronze, the data are very poor, and it will be necessary to get better ones to verify that this continuity is also valid for this period. I don't have the slightest concern about it.

    (1) "The origin of a Bronze Age in Norway: structure, regional process and localized history" in "Local Societies in Bronze Age Northern Europe"
    Read this papers and you see that in the Elp/ Sögel-Wohlde area for sure there were Tumulus immigrants:
    https://www.academia.edu/49454352/Ar...19_2020_43_110
    https://www.researchgate.net/publica..._20172018_1-48



    These Tumulus people can be mostly connected to the Tumulus groups along the Rhine and Weser of Southwest Germany. Sögel-Wohlde is a Tumulus offshoot. That affected at least Denmark but most probably during BA also other parts of Southern Scandinavia.

    The question is not IF there was such a Tumulus migration but how big was the impact.


    But I know speaking against deaf ears, you firmly believe in the big BAC/ Corded continuity (computer says...).....I think that's too gross.

    I'm convinced that for example the spread (even founder effect) of some R1b U106 lines along the North Sea Coast could well be connected to this Tumulus/ Urnfield expansion.

    But ok agree to disagree. We will see.....
    Last edited by Finn; 09-21-2021 at 02:28 PM.

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

     Hando (10-06-2021)

  13. #107
    Registered Users
    Posts
    189
    Sex
    Location
    Eastern Norway
    Ethnicity
    Norwegian
    Y-DNA (P)
    R-Z19
    mtDNA (M)
    H4a

    Norway
    Quote Originally Posted by Helves View Post
    I think we'll surely be able to model modern day Scandinavians equally well or even better when we get Danish Single Graves samples of decent quality.
    Regarding I-M253, there's way too high diversity of I-M253 in Denmark for it to have been a Battle Axe marker IMO.
    I also don't think its origins are in Battle Axe, but I guess it could have been present in the Neolithic populations of Scandinavia that were there prior?

  14. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Bygdedweller For This Useful Post:

     Hando (10-06-2021),  Helves (09-21-2021)

  15. #108
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    7,826
    Sex
    Location
    Normandy
    Ethnicity
    northwesterner
    Y-DNA (P)
    R-BY3604-Z275
    mtDNA (M)
    H5a1

    Normandie Orkney Netherlands Friesland East Frisia Finland
    Quote Originally Posted by Helves View Post
    I think we'll surely be able to model modern day Scandinavians equally well or even better when we get Danish Single Graves samples of decent quality.
    Regarding I-M253, there's way too high diversity of I-M253 in Denmark for it to have been a Battle Axe marker IMO.
    With qpAdm the Danish SGC Gjerrild 5 (which is of decent quality) is nearly indistinguishable from the Swedish BAC individuals. Well, I'll complete this comment with more details later or tomorrow. As for I-M253 I never saw anybody claiming it's a Battle Axe Y (if you mean a Y that would have come with the Corded ancestors of BAC) . Correct me if I'm wrong.
    En North alom, de North venom
    En North fum naiz, en North manom

    (Roman de Rou, Wace, 1160-1170)

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

     Hando (10-06-2021)

  17. #109
    Registered Users
    Posts
    653
    Sex
    Ethnicity
    Assyrian
    Y-DNA (P)
    G1a
    mtDNA (M)
    I5b1

    Sweden
    Quote Originally Posted by anglesqueville View Post
    With qpAdm the Danish SGC Gjerrild 5 (which is of decent quality) is nearly indistinguishable from the Swedish BAC individuals. Well, I'll complete this comment with more details later or tomorrow. As for I-M253 I never saw anybody claiming it's a Battle Axe Y (if you mean a Y that would have come with the Corded ancestors of BAC) . Correct me if I'm wrong.
    Well that's a given, pretty much all later Corded Ware samples are nearly indistinguishable. Looking at uniparentals would give us more answers in regards to where each subset of the CWC originated.
    I-M253 entering Scandinavia during Corded Ware is still a possibilty, IMO.

  18. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Helves For This Useful Post:

     Hando (10-06-2021),  JoeyP37 (09-21-2021),  Strider99 (09-22-2021)

  19. #110
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,309
    Sex
    Location
    lombardy
    Nationality
    italian

    Italy Portugal Order of Christ Russia Imperial Canada Quebec Spanish Empire (1506-1701) Vatican
    a refresh about BAC culture genetics even tough I must add the presence of R1b V636 IIRC

    A genetic study published in Nature in June 2015 examined the remains of a Battle Axe male buried in Viby, Sweden ca. 2621-2472 BC.[10][11] He was found to be a carrier of the paternal haplogroup R1a1a1 and the maternal haplogroup K1a2a.[11] People of the Late Neolithic and Bronze Age cultures of Scandinavia were found to be very closely related people of the Corded Ware culture, Bell Beaker culture and Unetice culture, all of whom shared genetic affinity with the Yamnaya culture. The Sintashta culture and Andronovo culture of Central Asia also displayed close genetic relations to the Corded Ware culture.[12]

    A genetic study published in Nature Communications in January 2018 examined a male buried in Ölsund in northern Sweden ca. 2570–2140. Although buried without artifacts, he was found close to an archaeological site containing both hunter-gatherer and Corded Ware artifacts.[13] He was found to be a carrier of the paternal haplogroup R1a1a1b and the maternal haplogroup U4c2a.[14] He was found to be genetically similar to peoples of the Battle Axe culture, carrying a large amount of steppe-related ancestry.[15][16] The paternal haplogroup R1a1a1b was also found to be the predominant lineage among Corded Ware and Bronze Age males of the eastern Baltic.[14]

    A genetic study published in Proceedings of the Royal Society B examined the remains of 2 Battle Axe individuals buried in Bergsgraven in central Sweden. The male carried the paternal haplogroup R1a-Z283 and the maternal haplogroup U4c1a, while the female carried the maternal haplogroup N1a1a1a1.


    Three samples are three samples but FWIW it seems ( I say it with caution) Scandinavia was a R1a territory. If Scandinavia ended up being germanic speaking ( regardless if it is the urheimat or not) something MUST have happend since the BAC era because we know proto-germanic mostly was R1b U106 and I1. My take is R1b U106 with danish beakers and I1 was a local Funnelbeaker contribution. We will see anyway.
    Last edited by etrusco; 09-21-2021 at 03:17 PM.

  20. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to etrusco For This Useful Post:

     Hando (10-06-2021),  JMcB (09-21-2021),  Strider99 (09-22-2021),  uintah106 (09-21-2021)

Page 11 of 29 FirstFirst ... 91011121321 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Dynamic DNA Labs
    By Mixed in forum Other
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-13-2020, 07:39 PM
  2. Vampire from Bohemia
    By Farroukh in forum E1b-M215
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-11-2020, 06:39 PM
  3. Replies: 19
    Last Post: 07-03-2019, 06:47 PM
  4. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 03-06-2019, 12:11 AM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-23-2017, 07:00 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
  •