The only quibble I have with the diagram of the Y chromosome in Iain's outdated primer is that he illustrates the Y-chromosome as a diploid genome connected at the centromere, which is correct for every other chromosome including the XX in females, but not the Y in males, or even XXY for those with Klinefelter syndrome!? The Y chromsome is a haploid genome and generally never undergoes recombination during meiosis; it comes down to basic physical geometry - just look at the .
There is some evidence of the X and Y conjoining during meiosis, but they conjoin at the ends near the like an elongated "D" shape, exchanging parts of their respective (PAR), but not at the centromere in the twinned chromatid "X" shape.? Because of this Y-SNPS found in the Y's PAR1 and PAR2 are excluded from phylogenetic classification.
Ybrowse.org shows the linear geometry of the Y chromosome correctly.
Thank you, Rachel and Iain, for pointing me to YBrowse - perfect.? And thank you, too, Iain, for the link to your U106 Explored paper.? The diagram on the last page is very helpful - and I think I'll find the entire report interesting, too!
With appreciation,
Mary Henderson
On Monday, March 25, 2024 at 04:44:44 PM EDT, Iain via groups.io <gubbins@...> wrote:
Hi Mary,
If you have a name, you can look up the corresponding position on the Y chromosome on YBrowse.org (or vice versa). Simply enter the name in the search box and its context will appear. Click on the highlighted red box to display the details. Zoom out to show the context.
If you would like a broad overview of the Y chromosome to put each region into context, there's an old diagram I made up on the last page of this primer: https://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~mcdonald/genetics/report-2017-primer.pdf Note that FTDNA and most other sites use the GRCh38/hg38 co-ordinates on the top of the diagram, not the old GRCh37/hg19 co-ordinates displayed more prominently on the bottom. Note also that the majority of the rest of the document is very outdated!
If you have a name, you can look up the corresponding position on the Y chromosome on YBrowse.org (or vice versa). Simply enter the name in the search box and its context will appear. Click on the highlighted red box to display the details. Zoom out to show the context.
If you would like a broad overview of the Y chromosome to put each region into context, there's an old diagram I made up on the last page of this primer: https://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~mcdonald/genetics/report-2017-primer.pdf Note that FTDNA and most other sites use the GRCh38/hg38 co-ordinates on the top of the diagram, not the old GRCh37/hg19 co-ordinates displayed more prominently on the bottom. Note also that the majority of the rest of the document is very outdated!
On Mar 25, 2024, at 12:25?PM, mlh via groups.io <mhendersona2@...> wrote:
?
Hi, all!
What is a good resource for determining where on the Y chromosome a particular SNP is, please? Do you start by finding the position number of the SNP by using the FTDNA chromosome browser?? And then when you have the position number that corresponds with that SNP, how do you determine where on the Y chromosome (centromere, pseudoautosomal region, etc.) that position number is found???
And how does the numbering work?? Does the numbering start with a low number at the telomere at one end and get progressively higher until reaching the telomere at the other end?
If anyone can point me to resources to understand this better, I'd be appreciative.
What is a good resource for determining where on the Y chromosome a particular SNP is, please? Do you start by finding the position number of the SNP by using the FTDNA chromosome browser?? And then when you have the position number that corresponds with that SNP, how do you determine where on the Y chromosome (centromere, pseudoautosomal region, etc.) that position number is found???
And how does the numbering work?? Does the numbering start with a low number at the telomere at one end and get progressively higher until reaching the telomere at the other end?
If anyone can point me to resources to understand this better, I'd be appreciative.
Thank you!
Mary Henderson
Re: Question about the location of my clade (a downstream clade to R-FGC12988)
Well Skinner is an occupational surname so it is difficult to say when or why your ancestor ended up in Tralee.??Elizabeth I in 1587 granted Tralee to Sir Edward Denny (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Denny_(soldier)) and some of his chief undertaker families (Blennerhasset, Chute & Morris) were from southwest England where other members of your branch (Wheaton, Dean, etc) are from.? Perhaps the local history of Tralee () will shed some light on your family.? The link to the history has a contact person.? They may be more informed about your Skinner ancestors.
You are part of a parallel branch to that of Kincaids and Sinclairs but we all don't meet up with a common ancestor till back about 100 CE.? You are closer to Wheaton and Deans, but even then the common ancestor is about 700 AD.? It is technically possible your ancestor came down from the Limerick area where there was a Viking settlement.? Our Kincaids has one prominent Roman Catholic branch (most Kincaids were Presbyterians) and they were from the Limerick area.? This line is one of the closest to mine (which were for several years in the Londonderry area) but our common ancestor appears to be in the 1400s.
Skinner does not seem to be common in Ireland with only about a dozen names in the Griffiths Valuation and less than that in the early Tithe Applottment Books.? County Cork is where they were more numerous.? There is a John Skinner in Tullagh, Cork in the Griffiths ().? As far as Tralee goes, best to check with locals and/or search the online Catholic Church records as suggested by another poster.
Re: Question about the location of my clade (a downstream clade to R-FGC12988)
On Sat, Mar 23, 2024 at 9:54?PM Timothy May <maytimd@...> wrote:
Hi Saul, If you know a general time period and location you can search for a history of that area (book, online article, etc.).? Knowing some history and context might help with some genealogical and clade migration questions. Tim
Re: Question about the location of my clade (a downstream clade to R-FGC12988)
My last name is Skinner, and the earliest known ancestor I know is a John Skinner around 1837 I believe, and then the Irish genealogy records stop for him. There is a singular document which seems to suggest his dad was named William but that's essentially it.?
Hi Saul, If you know a general time period and location you can search for a history of that area (book, online article, etc.). ?Knowing some history and context might help with some genealogical and clade migration questions. Tim
Re: Question about the location of my clade (a downstream clade to R-FGC12988)
I have been wondering if anyone here could help me in terms of understanding exactly how my clade ended up in Ireland. My terminal clade is R-FT239204, a downstream clade to R-FGC12988 which from my understanding descended from the same clade belonging to the Sinclair and Kincaids, though, not by descent of them. My family is from South-West Ireland (Tralee), and clearly possess a non-Gaelic most likely English surname despite being Roman Catholic in origin.?
I would assume the clade migrated into Ireland around the late 1700s, and from what I can gather around Cornwall. If anyone could provide additional insight or if anyone could confirm that which I have said, that would be wonderful. I have no close matches on FTDNA unfortunately, in terms of providing insightful information as to the migration of my clade.?
Re: Ukraine may have been first part of Europe colonised by early humans | New Scientist
Anatolia is clearly something of a whirlpool with regard to migration patterns with multiple movements in different directions…but deserving of more critical analysis.
From:[email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Dan D. Sent: Friday, March 22, 2024 1:33 PM To:[email protected] Subject: Re: [R1b-U106] Ukraine may have been first part of Europe colonised by early humans | New Scientist
?
That’s why I posted it because the western expansion happened through Ukraine and via Anatolia. Even if this is an early development, it’s still a sensible migratory path.
?
Dan
On Mar 22, 2024, at 1:51?PM, Richard Youatt <Richard@...> wrote:
?
Dmanisi is clearly a “zone of interest”. It raises a lot of questions about migration paths from Africa through? (not around) ?the South Caucasus, as well as about interactions with Neanderthals.
?
I see this topic as relevant to U106 since that is where the reaching back up the tree earlier than U106 points in that direction.
?
Richard
?
?
From:[email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Dan D. Sent: Friday, March 22, 2024 6:50 AM To:[email protected] Subject: [R1b-U106] Ukraine may have been first part of Europe colonised by early humans | New Scientist
?
Ukraine may have been first part of Europe colonised by early humans Korolevo, a site in Ukraine where early humans made stone tools, has been dated to 1.4 million years ago, suggesting early humans moved from Ukraine into the rest of Europe
Korolevo quarry in Ukraine, one of the oldest hominin sites in Europe
Roman Garba
Molecular dating has revealed that an area in Ukraine was occupied by humans 1.4 million years ago, making it one of the oldest hominin sites in Europe and possibly the oldest.
The site, at Korolevo in western Ukraine, has been studied since the 1970s. A large number of stone tools have been found buried in layers of sediment beside an outcrop of volcanic rock suitable to be made into tools.
“This was like a magnet for bringing the people there, and they were camping nearby,” says at the Czech Academy of Sciences in Prague.
No bones have been found as the soil is too acidic to preserve them, he says, but it is assumed that the hominins were Homo erectus, a species that evolved around 2 million years ago and spread from Africa to Europe and Asia.
While it has been clear that early hominins were present at the Korolevo site repeatedly over hundreds of thousands of years, we haven’t known exactly when they were present. But Garba’s team has now dated the oldest layer containing tools to 1.4 million years ago, using a technique called cosmogenic nuclide dating.
This method relies on cosmic rays that are so energetic that they can split the nuclei of atoms and generate unusual isotopes. However, these isotopes form only on exposed areas, as these cosmic rays don’t penetrate far into solid objects.
Once objects are buried, radioactive isotopes generated by cosmic rays decay into other isotopes, allowing the time of burial to be determined.
Another early hominin site in Dmanisi in Georgia has been dated to 1.7 million years ago, while other sites in France and Spain are around 1.2 million years old. This suggests that early humans moved from Africa through Georgia and into Ukraine, then west into the rest of Europe, says Garba, though it is also possible that some crossed the Bosphorus Strait in Turkey.
It has been suggested that some hominins to reach Spain when sea levels were lower than present, then moved east into the rest of Europe, but there is no evidence to support this, says Garba.
While part of Georgia is in Europe geographically and the whole country is seen as part of Europe politically, the site of Dmanisi is geographically located in Asia, says Garba. So he and his team regard Korolevo as the oldest human site in Europe that has been reliably dated.
“Korolevo represents, to our knowledge, the earliest securely dated hominin presence in Europe,” the paper states.
“I agree that the new age estimates are important, and they support the idea of an early east-west dispersal,” says at the Natural History Museum in London.
But this was already apparent because four other sites in western Europe , he says.
Garba says that while it is possible that these other sites are as old, . “We can't be as sure about them,” he says. “They are not secure or not robust.”
“I respectfully disagree,” says Stringer.
?
Dan
Re: Ukraine may have been first part of Europe colonised by early humans | New Scientist
That’s why I posted it because the western expansion happened through Ukraine and via Anatolia. Even if this is an early development, it’s still a sensible migratory path.
Dan
On Mar 22, 2024, at 1:51?PM, Richard Youatt <Richard@...> wrote:
?
Dmanisi is clearly a “zone of interest”. It raises a lot of questions about migration paths from Africa through? (not around) ?the South Caucasus, as well as about interactions with Neanderthals.
?
I see this topic as relevant to U106 since that is where the reaching back up the tree earlier than U106 points in that direction.
From:[email protected] <[email protected]>
On Behalf Of Dan D. Sent: Friday, March 22, 2024 6:50 AM To:[email protected] Subject: [R1b-U106] Ukraine may have been first part of Europe colonised by early humans | New Scientist
?
Ukraine may have been first part of Europe colonised by early humans Korolevo, a site in Ukraine where early humans made stone tools, has been dated to 1.4 million years ago, suggesting early humans moved from Ukraine into the rest of Europe
Korolevo quarry in Ukraine, one of the oldest hominin sites in Europe
Roman Garba
Molecular dating has revealed that an area in Ukraine was occupied by humans 1.4 million years ago, making it one of the oldest hominin sites in Europe and possibly the oldest.
The site, at Korolevo in western Ukraine, has been studied since the 1970s. A large number of stone tools have been found buried in layers of sediment beside an outcrop of volcanic rock suitable to be made into tools.
“This was like a magnet for bringing the people there, and they were camping nearby,” says
at the Czech Academy of Sciences in Prague.
No bones have been found as the soil is too acidic
to preserve them, he says, but it is assumed that the hominins were Homo erectus, a species that
evolved around 2 million years ago and spread from Africa to Europe and Asia.
While it has been clear that early hominins were present at the Korolevo site repeatedly over hundreds of thousands of years, we haven’t known exactly when they were present. But Garba’s team has now dated the oldest layer containing tools to 1.4 million
years ago, using a technique called cosmogenic nuclide dating.
This method relies on cosmic rays that are so energetic that they can split the nuclei of atoms and generate unusual isotopes. However, these isotopes form only on exposed areas, as these cosmic rays don’t penetrate far into solid objects.
Once objects are buried, radioactive isotopes generated by cosmic rays decay into other isotopes, allowing the time of burial to be determined.
Another
early hominin site in Dmanisi in Georgia has been dated to 1.7 million years ago, while other sites in France and Spain are around 1.2 million years old. This suggests that early humans
moved from Africa through Georgia and into Ukraine, then west into the rest of Europe, says Garba, though it is also possible that some crossed the Bosphorus Strait in Turkey.
It has been suggested that some hominins to reach Spain when sea levels were lower than present, then moved east into the rest of Europe, but there is no evidence to support this, says Garba.
While part of Georgia is in Europe geographically and the whole country is seen as part of Europe politically, the site of Dmanisi is geographically located in Asia, says Garba. So he and his team regard Korolevo as the oldest human site in Europe that has
been reliably dated.
“Korolevo represents, to our knowledge, the earliest securely dated hominin presence in Europe,” the paper states.
“I agree that the new age estimates are important, and they support the idea of an early east-west dispersal,” says
at the Natural History Museum in London.
But this was already apparent because four other sites in western Europe , he says.
Garba says that while it is possible that these other sites are as old, . “We can't be as sure about them,” he says. “They are not secure or not robust.”
“I respectfully disagree,” says Stringer.
?
Dan
Re: VK389 and Kincaid dna as evidence of Vikings on Clyde river, Scotland?
I’m not able to put my finger on the source material right now (it was probably Lista, Kvinesdal, Lyngdal or one of the other bygdeboker from the area and written in norsk).? Definitely not talking about English ships raiding from Farsund.? If I wasn’t clear, I meant to say that Norwegians along that section of coastline staged attacks on British ships during that time. ?It was because of Denmark’s support of Napoleon and his loss in the war that Denmark agreed to give control of Norway over to Sweden---which did not make Norwegians very happy….
?
Anyway, no, I did not have specific ‘events’ in mind.
From:[email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Brian Swann Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2024 11:55 PM To:[email protected] Subject: Re: [R1b-U106] VK389 and Kincaid dna as evidence of Vikings on Clyde river, Scotland?
?
Could you explain what events you had in mind when you say :
?
“But that area has a rich nautical history and folks living there were key in the early 1800’s in supporting Denmark in Napoleon’s war.? Raids of English ships from Farsund and other locales there were not uncommon.? It may have been considered ‘isolated’ by some, but the folks there had some means.”
?
Are you talking about events in the 1801-1814 time period when Britain had various expeditions to Denmark and Sweden – but I don’t recall English ships “raiding from Farsund”.? Unless you mean events like this.
?
?
?
Brian
?
From:[email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Myles Twete Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2024 6:33 PM To:[email protected] Subject: Re: [R1b-U106] VK389 and Kincaid dna as evidence of Vikings on Clyde river, Scotland?
?
Interesting read, thanks.
?
It’s funny to see an Icelandic author part of a study referring to part of Norway as “isolated”.? Hard to wrap my head around that one… J
?
The results show some expected and almost obvious haplogroup sharing between adjacent counties in various parts of Norway, not just in the South----e.g. North and South Trondelag and also between Troms and Finnmark.? You also see elevated sharing between Hordaland (min farslinjer kommer fra der) and Rogaland.? Sure, there’s a lot of sharing seen between the Agder counties, Rogaland and Telemark with little from the others to/from them---they are adjacent areas!
?
And that is not very unexpected when you consider Norway is a very long, thin country. ?There’s little significance to look at sharing between that Southern coast and anywhere north of Bergen, frankly, so they might have done better to break up the analysis into 3 sub-regions first.
?
Norway’s southern coast, physically, is pretty isolated in several ways.? One of the major centers there (and epicenter of that coast) has the apt-name of ?“Farsund”.? Need we say more?? The authors seem to point to lack of deep fjords in the South without considering that that was not a factor until the 20th century or so.? The fjords in the South are different, but they are still fjords.? Farsund/Vanse/Lyngdal/Kvinesdal have seen many centuries of seafaring and are also famous for boat building.? I have ancestors from there.
?
The authors seem to suggest that lack of genetic sharing with the rest of Norway suggests physical isolation or a shortage of mates leading to inbreeding.? And there was inbreeding (my 2 second-great-grandparents from Farsund/Vanse were first cousins)----but that was not uncommon in many places in Norway and had less to do with “isolation” than lacking a taboo and a great desire to keep farms in the hands of family and friends. ?In time, it had the same effect though---a farm-ownership inheritance system (“Odel” system which the Vikings brought from Scotland---also reflected in the Norwegian tax payment word “Skatt” or Skot which was a “tribute”) that limited outsiders’ ability to come in and just buy many properties.? Many or most such properties across Norway still remain in descendant families’ ownership.
?
Genealogists looking at farm ownership history since the 1400’s in the Flesberg/Numedal valley, North of Kongsberg (well outside of the Agder/Rogaland/Telemark zone these authors refer to as isolated) have noted that arranged marriages were the rule there in order to keep farms in the local families. ?My grandmother came from there.
?
Dane and German immigrants of course were common from the first days of mining in Southern Norway, particularly in Kongsberg where Kong Christian 4 of Denmark funded the centuries-long mining there for silver and peuter beginning in the late 1500’s.? My mother comes from there (and may be descended from KC4).
?
I understand the PCA analysis and the inferences the authors make based on it and the other statistical analyses.? Certainly the South of Norway shows slightly-elevated genetic sharing between adjacent counties and elevated sharing within the counties.? That is not unusual and as noted above is seen in 3 other neighboring county groups elsewhere in Norway from Top to Bottom, West to East and in the case of Troms/Finnmark even in greater amounts.
?
I have ancestors from all of these areas: Telemark, Aust- and Vest-Agder, Rogaland, Hedmark, Buskerud, Troms and Trondelag.? My 1st great-grandmother (from Farsund and whose parents were cousins) did not languish in Farsund---she married the son of a miner/farmer in Kongsberg and made a life there.
?
Finally, this study seems to reach too far to me.? I mean, being they’re basing it on DNA test of ‘unrelated’ Norwegians (how did they determine that?), and all of the 19 county associations that they make are based on the “postcode” from the mailed personal sample.? They also note that there was amplified sample bias from SE Norway (Oslo area) and undersampling in SFJ and the far North.? Did they have a DNA base set for each of the 19 counties that was used to correlate samples with?? No.? They inferred it based on assumptions that DNA from those post-marked areas somehow had multi-decade or multi-century meaning and association with that area.
?
So, yes, as the name “Farsund” suggests, that Southern coast is considered “far” from where most human activities in Norway tended to be.? But that area has a rich nautical history and folks living there were key in the early 1800’s in supporting Denmark in Napoleon’s war.? Raids of English ships from Farsund and other locales there were not uncommon.? It may have been considered ‘isolated’ by some, but the folks there had some means.
?
Anyway, thanks for sharing.
?
-MT
?
?
From:[email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of A321son via groups.io Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2024 5:45 AM To:[email protected] Subject: Re: [R1b-U106] VK389 and Kincaid DNA as evidence of Vikings on Clyde river, Scotland?
I just wanted to note here the following point. I wish to refer to the 17 May 2021 study: Mattingsdal, M., Ebenesersdóttir, S.S., Moore, K.H.S. et al. The genetic structure of Norway. Eur J Hum Genet 29, 1710–1718 (2021). . The summary of findings points out: "The main finding of this study is that despite Norway’s long maritime history and as a former Danish territory, the region closest to mainland Europe in the south appears to have been an isolated region in Norway, highlighting the open sea as a barrier to gene flow into Norway." Under discussion it adds: "Our results further support the divergence, isolation, and homogeneity in the southern counties of Norway (Rogaland, Agder, and Telemark). The isolation is exemplified by the observation that Oslo has a relatively similar trend in historical effective population size to that of the general British population, while Rogaland had a similar historical profile to the Orkney Islands [43]. Further, the counties of Rogaland and Vest-Agder display elevated levels of within-county haplotype sharing (~13–14?cM), suggesting isolation and inbreeding (Fig. 2), as well as increased homozygosity (Fig. 3) and small Ne (Table 1)." So this is in line with my recent point that the snp gaps with VK389 and Kincaids seem to point to isolation. Genetically, Telemark (which is the source of Skien's VK389) has the most in common (IBD - Identical by descent) with Aust-Agder and Vest-Agder to its immediate southwest at the southernmost tip of Norway. This is proven to be a very isolated population. This certainly is a prime candidate for being the source population for Kincaids - albeit this is tempered by VK389 being a collateral line to the Kincaids. The plotting of the dataset in McColl et al's "Steppe Ancestry in western Eurasia and the spread of the Germanic Languages" show Denmark and Frisia reasonably well sampled. Yet the southern tip of Norway and the Clyde valley area of Scotland are still not well represented. I think there could be a connection.
Just thought I'd note this study's finding. Thanks for the comments here.
Re: Ukraine may have been first part of Europe colonised by early humans | New Scientist
Dmanisi is clearly a “zone of interest”. It raises a lot of questions about migration paths from Africa through? (not around) ?the South Caucasus, as well as about interactions with Neanderthals.
?
I see this topic as relevant to U106 since that is where the reaching back up the tree earlier than U106 points in that direction.
From:[email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Dan D. Sent: Friday, March 22, 2024 6:50 AM To:[email protected] Subject: [R1b-U106] Ukraine may have been first part of Europe colonised by early humans | New Scientist
?
Ukraine may have been first part of Europe colonised by early humans Korolevo, a site in Ukraine where early humans made stone tools, has been dated to 1.4 million years ago, suggesting early humans moved from Ukraine into the rest of Europe
Korolevo quarry in Ukraine, one of the oldest hominin sites in Europe
Roman Garba
Molecular dating has revealed that an area in Ukraine was occupied by humans 1.4 million years ago, making it one of the oldest hominin sites in Europe and possibly the oldest.
The site, at Korolevo in western Ukraine, has been studied since the 1970s. A large number of stone tools have been found buried in layers of sediment beside an outcrop of volcanic rock suitable to be made into tools.
“This was like a magnet for bringing the people there, and they were camping nearby,” says at the Czech Academy of Sciences in Prague.
No bones have been found as the soil is too acidic to preserve them, he says, but it is assumed that the hominins were Homo erectus, a species that evolved around 2 million years ago and spread from Africa to Europe and Asia.
While it has been clear that early hominins were present at the Korolevo site repeatedly over hundreds of thousands of years, we haven’t known exactly when they were present. But Garba’s team has now dated the oldest layer containing tools to 1.4 million years ago, using a technique called cosmogenic nuclide dating.
This method relies on cosmic rays that are so energetic that they can split the nuclei of atoms and generate unusual isotopes. However, these isotopes form only on exposed areas, as these cosmic rays don’t penetrate far into solid objects.
Once objects are buried, radioactive isotopes generated by cosmic rays decay into other isotopes, allowing the time of burial to be determined.
Another early hominin site in Dmanisi in Georgia has been dated to 1.7 million years ago, while other sites in France and Spain are around 1.2 million years old. This suggests that early humans moved from Africa through Georgia and into Ukraine, then west into the rest of Europe, says Garba, though it is also possible that some crossed the Bosphorus Strait in Turkey.
It has been suggested that some hominins to reach Spain when sea levels were lower than present, then moved east into the rest of Europe, but there is no evidence to support this, says Garba.
While part of Georgia is in Europe geographically and the whole country is seen as part of Europe politically, the site of Dmanisi is geographically located in Asia, says Garba. So he and his team regard Korolevo as the oldest human site in Europe that has been reliably dated.
“Korolevo represents, to our knowledge, the earliest securely dated hominin presence in Europe,” the paper states.
“I agree that the new age estimates are important, and they support the idea of an early east-west dispersal,” says at the Natural History Museum in London.
But this was already apparent because four other sites in western Europe , he says.
Garba says that while it is possible that these other sites are as old, . “We can't be as sure about them,” he says. “They are not secure or not robust.”
“I respectfully disagree,” says Stringer.
?
Dan
Re: PhD candidate looking for Noble familes to DNA test
Ukraine may have been first part of Europe colonised by early humans
Korolevo, a site in Ukraine where early humans made stone tools, has been dated to 1.4 million years ago, suggesting early humans moved from Ukraine into the rest of Europe
Korolevo quarry in Ukraine, one of the oldest hominin sites in Europe
Roman Garba
Molecular dating has revealed that an area in Ukraine was occupied by humans 1.4 million years ago, making it one of the oldest hominin sites in Europe and possibly the oldest.
The site, at Korolevo in western Ukraine, has been studied since the 1970s. A large number of stone tools have been found buried in layers of sediment beside an outcrop of volcanic rock suitable to be made into tools.
“This was like a magnet for bringing the people there, and they were camping nearby,” says
at the Czech Academy of Sciences in Prague.
No bones have been found as the soil is too acidic
to preserve them, he says, but it is assumed that the hominins were
Homo erectus, a species that
evolved around 2 million years ago and spread from Africa to Europe and Asia.
While it has been clear that early hominins were present at the Korolevo site repeatedly over hundreds of thousands of years, we haven’t known exactly when they were present. But Garba’s team has now dated the oldest layer containing
tools to 1.4 million years ago, using a technique called cosmogenic nuclide dating.
This method relies on cosmic rays that are so energetic that they can split the nuclei of atoms and generate unusual isotopes. However, these isotopes form only on exposed areas, as these cosmic rays don’t penetrate far into solid
objects.
Once objects are buried, radioactive isotopes generated by cosmic rays decay into other isotopes, allowing the time of burial to be determined.
Another
early hominin site in Dmanisi in Georgia has been dated to 1.7 million years ago, while other sites in France and Spain are around 1.2 million years old. This suggests that early humans
moved from Africa through Georgia and into Ukraine, then west into the rest of Europe, says Garba, though it is also possible that some crossed the Bosphorus Strait in Turkey.
It has been suggested that some hominins to reach Spain when sea levels were lower than present, then moved east into the rest of Europe, but there is no evidence to support this, says Garba.
While part of Georgia is in Europe geographically and the whole country is seen as part of Europe politically, the site of Dmanisi is geographically located in Asia, says Garba. So he and his team regard Korolevo as the oldest human
site in Europe that has been reliably dated.
“Korolevo represents, to our knowledge, the earliest securely dated hominin presence in Europe,” the paper states.
“I agree that the new age estimates are important, and they support the idea of an early east-west dispersal,” says
at the Natural History Museum in London.
But this was already apparent because four other sites in western Europe
, he says.
Garba says that while it is possible that these other sites are as old,
. “We can't be as sure about them,” he says. “They are not secure or not robust.”
“I respectfully disagree,” says Stringer.
Dan
Re: VK389 and Kincaid dna as evidence of Vikings on Clyde river, Scotland?
Could you explain what events you had in mind when you say :
?
“But that area has a rich nautical history and folks living there were key in the early 1800’s in supporting Denmark in Napoleon’s war.? Raids of English ships from Farsund and other locales there were not uncommon.?
It may have been considered ‘isolated’ by some, but the folks there had some means.”
?
Are you talking about events in the 1801-1814 time period when Britain had various expeditions to Denmark and Sweden – but I don’t recall English ships “raiding from Farsund”.? Unless you mean events like this.
From:[email protected] <[email protected]>
On Behalf Of Myles Twete Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2024 6:33 PM To:[email protected] Subject: Re: [R1b-U106] VK389 and Kincaid dna as evidence of Vikings on Clyde river, Scotland?
?
Interesting read, thanks.
?
It’s funny to see an Icelandic author part of a study referring to part of
Norway as “isolated”.? Hard to wrap my head around that one… J
?
The results show some expected and almost obvious haplogroup sharing between adjacent counties in various parts of Norway, not just in the South----e.g. North and South Trondelag and also between Troms and Finnmark.?
You also see elevated sharing between Hordaland (min farslinjer kommer fra der) and Rogaland.? Sure, there’s a lot of sharing seen between the Agder counties, Rogaland and Telemark with little from the others to/from them---they are adjacent areas!
?
And that is not very unexpected when you consider Norway is a very long, thin country. ?There’s little significance to look at sharing between that Southern coast and anywhere north of Bergen, frankly, so they might have
done better to break up the analysis into 3 sub-regions first.
?
Norway’s southern coast, physically, is pretty isolated in several ways.? One of the major centers there (and epicenter of that coast) has the apt-name of ?“Farsund”.? Need we say more?? The authors seem to point to lack
of deep fjords in the South without considering that that was not a factor until the 20th century or so.? The fjords in the South are different, but they are still fjords.? Farsund/Vanse/Lyngdal/Kvinesdal have seen many centuries of seafaring and
are also famous for boat building.? I have ancestors from there.
?
The authors seem to suggest that lack of genetic sharing with the rest of Norway suggests physical isolation or a shortage of mates leading to inbreeding.? And there was inbreeding (my 2 second-great-grandparents from
Farsund/Vanse were first cousins)----but that was not uncommon in many places in Norway and had less to do with “isolation” than lacking a taboo and a great desire to keep farms in the hands of family and friends. ?In time, it had the same effect though---a
farm-ownership inheritance system (“Odel” system which the Vikings brought from Scotland---also reflected in the Norwegian tax payment word “Skatt” or Skot which was a “tribute”) that limited outsiders’ ability to come in and just buy many properties.? Many
or most such properties across Norway still remain in descendant families’ ownership.
?
Genealogists looking at farm ownership history since the 1400’s in the Flesberg/Numedal valley, North of Kongsberg (well outside of the Agder/Rogaland/Telemark zone these authors refer to as isolated) have noted that
arranged marriages were the rule there in order to keep farms in the local families. ?My grandmother came from there.
?
Dane and German immigrants of course were common from the first days of mining in Southern Norway, particularly in Kongsberg where Kong Christian 4 of Denmark funded the centuries-long mining there for silver and peuter
beginning in the late 1500’s.? My mother comes from there (and may be descended from KC4).
?
I understand the PCA analysis and the inferences the authors make based on it and the other statistical analyses.? Certainly the South of Norway shows slightly-elevated genetic sharing between adjacent counties and elevated
sharing within the counties.? That is not unusual and as noted above is seen in 3 other neighboring county groups elsewhere in Norway from Top to Bottom, West to East and in the case of Troms/Finnmark even in greater amounts.
?
I have ancestors from all of these areas: Telemark, Aust- and Vest-Agder, Rogaland, Hedmark, Buskerud, Troms and Trondelag.? My 1st great-grandmother (from Farsund and whose parents were cousins) did not languish
in Farsund---she married the son of a miner/farmer in Kongsberg and made a life there.
?
Finally, this study seems to reach too far to me.? I mean, being they’re basing it on DNA test of ‘unrelated’ Norwegians (how did they determine that?), and all of the 19 county associations that they make are based on
the “postcode” from the mailed personal sample.? They also note that there was amplified sample bias from SE Norway (Oslo area) and undersampling in SFJ and the far North.? Did they have a DNA base set for each of the 19 counties that was used to correlate
samples with?? No.? They inferred it based on assumptions that DNA from those post-marked areas somehow had multi-decade or multi-century meaning and association with that area.
?
So, yes, as the name “Farsund” suggests, that Southern coast is considered “far” from where most human activities in Norway tended to be.? But that area has a rich nautical history and folks living there were key in the
early 1800’s in supporting Denmark in Napoleon’s war.? Raids of English ships from Farsund and other locales there were not uncommon.? It may have been considered ‘isolated’ by some, but the folks there had some means.
?
Anyway, thanks for sharing.
?
-MT
?
?
From:[email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
On Behalf Of A321son via groups.io Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2024 5:45 AM To:[email protected] Subject: Re: [R1b-U106] VK389 and Kincaid DNA as evidence of Vikings on Clyde river, Scotland?
I just wanted to note here the following point. I wish to refer to the 17 May 2021 study: Mattingsdal, M., Ebenesersdóttir, S.S., Moore, K.H.S. et al. The genetic structure of Norway. Eur J Hum Genet 29, 1710–1718 (2021).
. The summary of findings points out: "The main finding of this study is that despite Norway’s long maritime history and as a former Danish territory,
the region closest to mainland Europe in the south appears to have been an isolated region in Norway, highlighting the open sea as a barrier to gene flow into Norway." Under discussion it adds: "Our results further support the divergence, isolation, and homogeneity
in the southern counties of Norway (Rogaland, Agder, and Telemark). The isolation is exemplified by the observation that Oslo has a relatively similar trend in historical effective population size to that of the general British population, while Rogaland had
a similar historical profile to the Orkney Islands [43]. Further, the counties of Rogaland and Vest-Agder display elevated levels of within-county haplotype sharing (~13–14?cM), suggesting isolation and inbreeding (Fig. 2), as well as increased homozygosity
(Fig. 3) and small Ne (Table 1)." So this is in line with my recent point that the snp gaps with VK389 and Kincaids seem to point to isolation. Genetically, Telemark (which is the source of Skien's VK389) has the most in common (IBD - Identical by descent)
with Aust-Agder and Vest-Agder to its immediate southwest at the southernmost tip of Norway. This is proven to be a very isolated population. This certainly is a prime candidate for being the source population for Kincaids - albeit this is tempered by VK389
being a collateral line to the Kincaids. The plotting of the dataset in McColl et al's "Steppe Ancestry in western Eurasia and the spread of the Germanic Languages" show Denmark and Frisia reasonably well sampled. Yet the southern tip of Norway and the Clyde
valley area of Scotland are still not well represented. I think there could be a connection.
Just thought I'd note this study's finding. Thanks for the comments here.
Kevin Terry
Timothy May
