开云体育

Sample:?I2611 (Male)
Location:?
Age:?3092-2905 calBCE
Y-DNA:?
mtDNA:?

I've never sent anybody a copy of Roberta's? DNA newsletter emails before, but I'll make an exception now because of the content she reveals. The entire sample list of British Isles ancient burial sites was sent to me by Roberta but is not included here as Gmail automatically truncated it. I've enclosed the file with hundreds of mtdna and yDNA that Roberta mentioned plus many more from continental Europe. If you could get her original email you could click on the blue highlighted "location" and it would take you directly there via Maps. The file I've enclosed gives the coordinates for each location.?

It also gives the age as "3092-2905 calBCE"? for sample I2611 man above but it is actually 4400 years BP in the file after the radiocarbon "calibrated" years are adjusted. The above L21 man is row #1785 in the file. It also mentions "questionable" which I think may be referring to the terminal SNP of R-A11001 which Alex W's Big Tree chart ages as about 2800 years old (click on the brown block -- on Alex's chart --above the block with A11001 to get it's age, shown at the bottom of the page that comes up. The TMRCA of any block is actually the exact age of the SNP, or block of? equivalent SNPs, immediately below it). So, 2800 ybp? for A11001 per Alex's chart is right, or the bones they tested actually are 4400 ybp but the A11001 SNP call is actually incorrect. If it is incorrect, the L21 call is probably correct.

I also noticed a L513 man found:?

Sample:?I13730 (Male)
Location:?
Age:?390-202 calBCE
Y-DNA:?
mtDNA:?

This S5668 man age is 2240 years BP in the file and is found on row 2066.

Row 1797 lists a Canada Farm, UK, 3900 ybp L21 beaker EEF man

Row 2051, a 2260 ybp DF1(L513) man from Orkney

For those of you interested, have fun looking through the file.

Best,

Daryl

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: DNAeXplained - Genetic Genealogy <donotreply@...>
Date: Tue, Feb 1, 2022, 1:11 PM
Subject: [New post] DNA from 459 Ancient British Isles Burials Reveals Relationships – Does Yours Match?
To: <class1driver@...>

Roberta Estes posted: "In December 2021, two major papers were released that focused on the ancient DNA of burials from Great Britain. The paper, A high-resolution picture of kinship practices in an Early Neolithic tomb by Fowler et al provided a genetic analysis of 35 individu" New post on DNAeXplained - Genetic Genealogy by In December 2021, two major papers were released that focused on the ancient DNA of burials from Great Britain. The paper, by Fowler et al provided a genetic analysis of 35 individuals from a Cotswold Neolithic burial who were found to be a multi-generational family unit. In by Patterson et, the authors generated genome-wide data for 793 ancient burials from the British Isles and continental Europe to determine who settled Great Britain, from where, and when. Of course, the very first thing genealogists want to know is, “Am I related?” If we are related, it’s far too distant for the reach of autosomal DNA, but and might just be very interesting. If you haven't yet tested your , and for males only, you're in luck because you can purchase those tests here. These two papers combined provide a significant window into the past in Great Britain; England, Scotland, Wales, and nearby islands. First, let’s take a look at the Cotswold region. The Cotswolds Ancient DNA was retrieved from a cairn burial in , a hilly region of Southwest England. By Saffron Blaze - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, Even today, the paused-in-time stone houses, fences, and ancient gardens harken back to earlier times. By Peter K Burian - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, Stunningly beautiful and historically important, the Cotswolds is a protected landscape that includes Neolithic burial chambers (3950-2450 BCE), Bronze and Iron Age forts, Roman villas, and eventually, the Celtic pathway known as . The Hazelton North Long-Tomb Burial Site The explores the kinship practices and relationships between the Cotswolds burials. Click to enlarge images The North Hazelton site was endangered due to repeated plowing in a farmer’s field. Excavation of the tomb occurred in 1981. A with a pdf file available at that link. The photo from 1979 on page 3 shows that the burial cairn only looks to be a slight rise in the field. You can see on the map below from the that there are many other locations in close proximity to the Hazelton North site, some with similarly arranged burials. The paper's authors state that there are 100 long cairns within 50 km of Hazelton North, and one only 80 meters away. Excavation in those tombs, along with archaeological evaluation would be needed to determine the ages of the cairns, if burial practices were the same or similar, and if any of the individuals were related to each other or the individuals in the North Hazelton cairn. In other words, were these separate cemeteries of an extended family, or disconnected burial grounds of different groups of people over time. While the North Hazelton site no longer exists, as it was entirely excavated, on , you can see photos before excavation, along with the main chamber which now resides in the in Cirencester, just a few kilometers away. The Fowler team analyzed 35 individuals who lived about 5,700 years ago, at least 100 years after cattle and cereal cultivation was introduced to Britain along with the construction of megalithic monuments. Stonehenge, the most well-known megalith, is located about 90 miles away and is estimated to be about 5,100 years old. The indicate that they were primarily Early European Farmers (EEF) from Anatolia who first moved to Iberia, then on to Britain. The remains analyzed in this paper were excavated from the . The tomb was built between 5,695 and 5,650 years ago, with the stonework of the north passage collapsing and sealing off the north chamber between 5,660 and 5,630 years ago. All burials stopped in this location about 5,620 years ago, so the site was only in use for about 80 years. The tomb seems to have been built with multiple passages in anticipation of planned burials by genealogical association. The arrangement of burials was determined by kinship, at least until the passage wall of the North chamber collapsed. The southern and northern chambers each housed two females' descendants, respectively. While the male progenitor was significant in that this entire tomb was clearly his family tomb, the arrangement of the burials within the chambers suggests that the women were socially significant in the community, and to their families as well. Osteological analysis reveals at least 41 individuals, 22 of whom were adults. Strontium isotope analysis indicates that most of the individuals had spent time in their childhood at least 40 km away. Authors of a 2015 paper interpret this to mean that the population as a whole was not sedentary, meaning that they may have moved with their livestock from place to place, perhaps based on seasons. Of course, this also calls into question what happened if an individual died while the group was not in the location of the burial cairn. Of those individuals, 27 people were part of a 5-generation family with many interrelationships. Of the 15 intergenerational genetic transmissions, all were through men, meaning every third, fourth or fifth generation individual was connected to the original patriarch through only males, suggesting that patrilineal descent determined who was buried in a Neolithic tomb. This also tells us that patrilineal social practices were persistent. 26 of 35 people with genetic data were male. Male burials in other Cotswold tombs outnumber females 1.6 to 1. The remains of some women must have been treated differently. No adult lineage daughters were present in the tomb, although two infant daughters were, suggesting that adult daughters were out-married, outside of either the community or this specific family lineage. They would have been buried in their husband’s tomb, just as these women were buried here. The male progenitor reproduced with 4 females, producing 14 adult sons who were buried in the tomb. All four females were buried in the tomb, in two chambers, suggesting that women, at least high-status women were buried with their partners and not in their father’s tomb. The lineages of two of those women were buried in the same half of the tomb over all generations, suggesting maternal lineages were socially important. The burials included four men who did not descend from the male progenitors of the clan lineage but DID descend from women who also had children with the progenitors. The authors state that this suggests that the progenitor men adopted the four children of their mates into their lineage, but it also raises the possibility that the progenitor men were not aware that those four men were not their descendants. Multiple reproductive partners of men were not related to each other, but multiple reproductive partners of women were. Eight individuals found within the tomb were not closely related to the main lineages. This could mean that they were partners of men who did not reproduce, or who had only adult daughters. It could also mean they were socially important, but not biologically related to either each other nor the tomb’s family members whose DNA was sampled. Of those who are related, inbreeding had been avoided meaning the parents of individuals were not related to each other based on . Some of the remains from the north chamber had been gnawed by scavengers, apparently before burial, and three cremations were buried at the entrance including an infant, a child, and an adult. This might answer the question of what happened if someone died while the group was away from the burial site. Individuals in the north tomb exhibited osteoarthritis typical of other burials in southern England, and signs of nutritional stress in childhood. The south chamber burials were more co-mingled and dispersed among neighboring compartments. In the Guardian article, , a genetic pedigree chart was drawn based on the burials, their relationship to each other, and burial locations. As discussed in this PNAS paper, , other Neolithic tomb burials in Europe were also reflective of a kinship system. The question remains, where did the Cotswold settlers come from? Who were they descended from and related to? The second paper provides insights to that question. Who Migrated into Britain, and When? that their DNA analysis of 793 individuals increased the data from the Middle (1550-1150 BCE) to Late Bronze (1150-750 BCE) and Iron Age (70-BCE-43CE) in Britain by 12-fold, and from Western and Central Europe by 3.5 times. They also reveal that present-day people from England and Wales carry more ancestry derived from Early European Farmers than people from the Early Bronze Age. The DNA contributed from Early European Farmers (EEF) increased over time in people in the southern portion of Britain and Wales, which includes the Cotswold region, but did not increase in northern Britain (Scotland,) nor in Kent. Specifically, from 31% in the Early Bronze Age to 34% in the Middle Bronze Age to 35% in the Late Bronze Age to 38% in the Iron Age. While the EEF DNA increased over time in the Southwest area of Britain, it decreased in other regions. This means that the increase could not be explained by migration from northern continental Europe in the medieval period because those early migrants carried even less Early European Farmer ancestry than the inhabitants of Southwest Britain. Therefore, if those two populations had admixed, the results would be progressively lower EEF in Southwest Britain, not higher. To fully evaluate this data, the team sequenced earlier samples from both Britain and mainland Europe in addition to the Cotswold burials, targeting 1.2 million SNP locations. In addition to DNA sequencing, they also utilized radiocarbon dating to confirm the age of the remains. Results for low-coverage individuals, meaning those with less than 30,000 SNPs scanned at least once, were removed from the data set. 123 individuals were identified as related to each other from 48 families within the third degree. Third-degree relatives share approximately 12.5% of their DNA and would include first cousins, great-grandparents/children, granduncles/aunts, half uncles/aunts/nieces/nephews. , the ability to digest the lactose in milk was significantly higher in this population than in either the rest of Britain or Central and Western Europe by a factor of 5 or greater. The DNA of the Cotswold burial groups and others found from this early timeframe in Southwest Britain and Wales is most similar to ancient burials from France. A shows a map of various major megalithic sites in both Europe and the British Isles. Based on charts in Figure 4 of the paper, the location in Europe with the highest percentage of EEF about 4300 years ago (2300 BCE) was the Iberian Peninsula – Spain and Portugal, a location that neighbors France. Lactase persistence began increasing about that time and dramatically rose about 3500 years ago (1500 BCE.) haplogroup R-L21/M529 went from 0% in the Neolithic era (3950-2450 BCE,) or about 5950-4450 years ago) in Britain to 90% in all of Britain in the Early Bronze Era (2450-1550 BCE or 4450-3550 years ago), then dropped slowly to about 70% in the Iron Age in Western England and Wales, then 50% in western Britain and Wales and 20% in Central and Eastern Britain in the Modern Era. You can read more about this research in this Phys.org article: , and more about Megalithic burials in France in this Smithsonian Magazine article: . Are You Connected? The paper authors made the resequenced and information available for analysis. Of course, we all want to know if we are connected with these people, especially if our families have origins in the British Isles. The R&D team at FamilyTreeDNA downloaded the and sequences and linked them to mapped locations. They also correlated samples to and haplogroups and linked them to their respective public trees and . The sometimes contained additional SNP information which allowed a more granular haplogroup to be assigned. I want to specifically thank Goran Runfeldt, head of R&D, for making this valuable information available and useful for genealogists by downloading, reformatting, and mapping the data, and Michael Sager, phylogeneticist in the FamilyTreeDNA lab, for reanalyzing the Y DNA results and refining them beyond the papers. Now, let’s get to the best part. The Map This map shows the locations of 459 ancient British Isles burials included in the papers, both in the Cotswolds and throughout the rest of Great Britain. There are significantly more haplogroups represented than . Of course, everyone, males and females both have , so , but only males carry . The next map shows the distribution of the base haplogroups. H=light green (181 samples) U=rust (70 samples) K=burgundy (68 samples) J=yellow (46 samples) T=dark green (43 samples) V=grey (16 samples) X=dark teal (9 samples) I=orange (6 samples) W=purple (6 samples) N=brown (2 samples) The most common haplogroup found is H which is unsurprising given that H is the most common haplogroup in Europe as well. It’s interesting to note that there is no clear haplogroup distribution pattern for either or ?DNA, with the exception of the North Hazelton burials themselves as outlined in the paper. There were only three ancient major haplogroups discovered. R=green (179 samples) I=gold (50 samples) G=blue (5 samples) 225 total samples were female and had no Y chromosome. A few male Y chromosomes were not recoverable. Of course, some samples on the maps fall directly beneath other samples, so it’s difficult to discern multiple samples from the same location. For that, and for more granular haplogroups, we need to refer to the data itself. How to Use the Data Each sample is identified by: A sample ID from the papers Sex Location with a google map link. Age calibrated to BCE, before current era, which means roughly how many years before about the year 1 that someone lived. To determine approximately how long ago one of these people lived, add 2000 to the BCE date. For example, 3500 BCE equates to 5500 years ago. haplogroup for male samples where recoverable, linked to . DNA haplogroup for all but 2 samples where mitochondrial results were not recoverable, linked to . If you have , you can use the browser search function (ctrl+F) on a PC to search for your haplogroup. For example. Searching for haplogroup H61 produces 5 results. Click on the sample locations to view where they were found. Are they in close proximity to each other? In the same burial? Four were found at the same location in the Channel Islands, and one in Kent. Where is your ancestor from? For , you can search for your haplogroup, but if you’ve taken the and don’t find your specific haplogroup, you might want to use the to search for successive upstream haplogroups to see where your closest ancient match might be found. Of course, if you’re haplogroup G, it’s pretty easy to just take a look without searching for each individual haplogroup. Just search for “G-“. For each sample, be sure to click on the haplogroup name itself to view its location on the tree and where else in the world this haplogroup is found. Let’s look at a couple of examples. Sample:?I26628 (Female) Location:? Age:?756-416 calBCE mtDNA:? Mitochondrial haplogroup H61, above, is fairly rare and currently found sparsely in several countries including England, Germany, Hungary, Belarus, Ireland, Netherlands, the UK, and France. The flags indicate the location of testers' earliest known ancestor of their mitochondrial, meaning direct matrilineal, line. Click on the haplogroup link to view the results in the Y or mtDNA trees. Next, let’s look at a sample. Sample:?I16427 (Male) Location:? Age:?4234-3979 calBCE Y-DNA:? mtDNA:? Haplogroup I-M423 itself is found most frequently in Germany, Poland, Ukraine, Scotland and Ireland, but note that it also has 648 downstream branches defined. You may match I-M423 by virtue of belonging to a downstream branch. Do you match any of these ancient samples, and where were your ancestors from? Sample:?I26630 (Male) Location:? Age:?749-403 calBCE mtDNA:? Sample:?I16430 (Female) Location:? Age:?337-52 calBCE mtDNA:? Sample:?I16505 (Female) Location:? Age:?174-45 calBCE mtDNA:? Sample:?I26629 (Female) Location:? Age:?170 calBCE - 90 calCE mtDNA:? Sample:?I16437 (Female) Location:? Age:?4241-4050 calBCE mtDNA:? Sample:?I16444 (Male) Location:? Age:?4228-3968 calBCE Y-DNA:? mtDNA:? Sample:?I16429 (Male) Location:? Age:?3088-2914 calBCE mtDNA:? Sample:?I16425 (Female) Location:? Age:?3083-2912 calBCE mtDNA:? Sample:?I16438 (Male) Location:? Age:?2567-2301 calBCE Y-DNA:? mtDNA:? Sample:?I16436 (Male) Location:? Age:?3954-3773 calBCE Y-DNA:? mtDNA:? Sample:?I16435 (Male) Location:? Age:?3646-3527 calBCE mtDNA:? Sample:?I16597 (Male) Location:? Age:?404-209 calBCE Y-DNA:? mtDNA:? Sample:?I21293 (Female) Location:? Age:?425-200 BCE mtDNA:? Sample:?I11151 (Male) Location:? Age:?379-197 calBCE Y-DNA:? mtDNA:? Sample:?I11150 (Male) Location:? Age:?381-197 calBCE Y-DNA:? mtDNA:? Sample:?I19047 (Male) Location:? Age:?1-50 CE Y-DNA:? mtDNA:? Sample:?I19045 (Male) Location:? Age:?388-206 calBCE Y-DNA:? mtDNA:? Sample:?I19046 (Male) Location:? Age:?383-197 calBCE Y-DNA:? mtDNA:? Sample:?I19044 (Male) Location:? Age:?381-199 calBCE Y-DNA:? mtDNA:? Sample:?I11152 (Male) Location:? Age:?355-59 calBCE Y-DNA:? mtDNA:? Sample:?I11149 (Male) Location:? Age:?733-397 calBCE Y-DNA:? mtDNA:? Sample:?I11154 (Female) Location:? Age:?743-404 calBCE mtDNA:? Sample:?I13729 (Female) Location:? Age:?512-236 calBCE mtDNA:? Sample:?I11153 (Male) Location:? Age:?405-209 calBCE Y-DNA:? mtDNA:? Sample:?I13727 (Female) Location:? Age:?389-208 calBCE mtDNA:? Sample:?I13728 (Male) Location:? Age:?381-179 calBCE Y-DNA:? mtDNA:? Sample:?I13687 (Female) Location:? Age:?368-173 calBCE mtDNA:? Sample:?I11156 (Male) Location:? Age:?382-200 calBCE Y-DNA:? mtDNA:? Sample:?I11997 (Male) Location:? Age:?377-197 calBCE Y-DNA:? mtDNA:? Sample:?I16620 (Female) Location:? Age:?340 BCE - 6 CE mtDNA:? Sample:?I12790 (Female) Location:? Age:?400-100 BCE mtDNA:? Sample:?I12793 (Male) Location:?

Daryl - thanks for putting Roberta's take on these findings into the mix. The key portion of her reporting for me is this:

"?haplogroup R-L21/M529 went from 0% in the Neolithic era (3950-2450 BCE,) or about 5950-4450 years ago) in Britain to 90% in all of Britain in the Early Bronze Era (2450-1550 BCE or 4450-3550 years ago), then dropped slowly to about 70% in the Iron Age in Western England and Wales, then 50% in western Britain and Wales and 20% in Central and Eastern Britain in the Modern Era."

That event (when 90% of Britons were DF13) happened after the DF1/L513 'starburst' and subsequent out-migrations. These movements were likely caused by the?"4.2 Kiloyear" global climate event.?

The individual kits found in the sw of the British Isle were more affected by subsequent late Bronze and Iron age incursions by later Celt tribes and trade with Galicia, Brittany, etc. along the Atlantic coast prior to the Romans and as reported on by others. This is when the Veneti might have participated however there is the period 1500 BCE when the precursors of the tribes the Roman found among the Borders might better account for our haplogroup history.

In other words, the L21 displacement was not as great in the North because it was already full of L513 descendant clusters. And they were not similarly displaced as much as the ancient peoples in the sw of the Isle due to their relative isolation in the north. Later still was the Dal Riata movement into the north highlands. But there is no reason to believe that every L513 cluster was Dal Riata if any was. The precursor societies since the middle bronze age (Norse, Normans, Bretons, Gaul, etc.) were all multi-ethnic, etc. And that might be the major message of the emergence of Bell Beaker folks generally - that tribal ethnicity identities were much reduced in favor of cultural identies (multi-ethnic). Language, worship and burial practices were 'learned and appropriated' in cohesion with living practices. It's possible that not every L513 cluster followed these same cultural transformations. In fact, it's equally likely that a continental migration from Europe to the British Isle happened before Bell Beaker culture blossomed. And that p-celtic language adoption came after they were already isolated geographically.

I'm attaching the timeline I use as a reference tool. It recognizes YFull SNP ages and calculations exclusively for uniformity purposes.

Leake, is there any particular reason you have "Formation of L193 (aka S5982) on British Isle"?? Back at 1600 BC we don't know where L513 or S5668 people were. We just know we have the Iron Age people (skeletons) for R-S5668 at Kent and R-Z16400 in the Orkney Islands.? Both face the North Sea. Apparently L513 was good at sea travel.

I definitely could see an L193 origination on the Isles but I don't have any evidence.? We know this paper concludes there was a large influx from the continent about 800 BC. The paper supports the theory that P Celtic/Brythonic came in or developed on Great Britain in this timeframe.. There is a chance we could have come with this Late Bronze Age immigration.

[Edited Message Follows]
[Reason: Added links for background info]

Oh no don't apologize I'm just trying to communicate clearly. These ideas are presented to be commented upon or debated. I expect to answer some questions and be present.

I was near the end of my first reply when I mistakenly closed the tab without sending. I'm not relying on the present distribution as I really don't have precise data on that. But there is a study from CTS for NatGeo demonstrating that ancient populations (4500 ybp) can be 'placed' with primary research:??





What I really wish to open up is a discussion about earlier dates, earlier migrations, and the use of population biology/natural science tools and methods to explore surname development along the Borders. We don't have any exacting location data but we have observable gaps in time, known clusters, lines below clusters, etc. The general story on lactase tolerance appears to be that it was an essential mutation of the Yamna - and that those people carried herd animals with them. The diffusion of the lactase-tolerant gene was not uniform. In fact it shows up in southern Europe earlier than elsewhere. It arrives on the British Isle before it emerges in central Europe later (closer to 980BCE).

We also seem to have 'starburst' SNP formation events with multiple surviving lines in some cases (L21, L513, L193, Z17296, etc.) vs. linear, cascading mutations without defining clusters over the same time period. These patterns point to differing life histories among the lines themselves. Some are long and lean, others are more bushy over the same period, etc. These patterns suggest different aspects of these histories - food/climate population events, endogamy, active/sedentary, etc. even before we find ancient skeletons.

Here are links to the discussion about lactase tolerance gene mutations and their spread (locations, dates) for background: