Hi All,

Perhaps the most noteworthy revelation in this study is the conjectured back migration following the initial Migration period, when, e.g., the Langobards moved out of Southern Scandinavia.

"The population in southern Scandinavia after 1200 BP shows hitherto unknown changes compared with the situation in the same areas before 1600 BP. Our results demonstrate the arrival of a strong component of North German IA ancestry, in combination with a series of ancestries previously associated with Celtic-speaking groups and populations carrying European Farmer (in addition to GAC) ancestry from north-western Europe. In the Danish islands, the shift amounts to a virtually complete population replacement."

We might surmise that this back migration introduced U106 lineages into Schleswig, Jutland and beyond, together with other typically Celtic haplogroups to form the historical Danes. Perhaps of less immediate interest to us is "the proposed Bronze Age source of the East Scandinavians along the Baltic coast." Here some of the evidence brought by the linguist Hans Krahe for a close association of Proto-Baltic, -Illyrian and -Germanic languages might eventually come into play.

Cheers, Roy

开云体育

• Article
• Published: 03 May 2023

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.

开云体育

Thank you very much Ray for noting this and for updating your spreadsheet.? Crossing my fingers on a couple of the Z7 samples.

I thought you missed a Z7 (Z7>Z31>Z8>Z338>Z11>Z341>Z12>Z8175>FTB34754>FGC12057>S18890 per ftdna).?
However, it looks like a typo in your spreadsheet.? You have?CGG105719 but their spreadsheet has it as the following:

CGG107519 NM 523/52, Grave IV A NorthernEurope Denmark Zealand Kyndby 55.7946056 11.9197119 Bone Petrous 550-750AD 1335 20 12.1 -19.4 UCIAMS-282676 1300 1176 1238 650 774 712 IronAge LateGermanic CGG107519 0.880953 XY T2b6+146 1 0.9833 3-308 311-1084 1212-1601 1607-1837 1983-3989 4040-4106 4241-4381 4836-5067 5295-5552 5764-5887 6171-6745 6858-6866 6869-7009 7169-7333 7608-7734 7804-7968 7989-8269 8387-8571 8573-8574 8588-8770 8993-8996 8998 9000-9142 9242-9243 9245-9253 9258-9406 9447-9637 9639 9656-13339 13344-13350 13354-13356 13375-16564 0.9914176 0.9838517 0.9964321 R1b1a1b1a1a1c2b2a1b1a1a2b2 NA NA

Thanks again.??Best wishes!

Hi folks,

There are some interesting results here for us. Whether fortunate or not, there's nothing immediately ground-breaking that leaps out at me - that's good, because it means the new results basically confirm the ideas we already had (see /g/R1b-U106/message/5759 ).

We expect a lot of R-U106 to be involved in the Nordic Bronze Age, and R-Z18 in particular is likely to have migrated furthest north among the early R-U106 haplogroups. So the large number of R-Z18 found within this culture firmly establishes this link between culture and haplogroup. The lack of other R-U106 haplogroups (apart from RISE98's) among the ancient samples from this culture is more surprising. They may well be there, but perhaps they were less important or later arrivals.

The presence of R-Z156 within the La Tene culture equally isn't that surprising. R-Z156 is one of the haplogroups I have long excepted to be more dominant within the core Celtic groups.

Later samples from this paper are from periods where haplogroups are already well mixed, and we're not really at the stage of being able to deal with many of these haplogroups in that much detail.

What will really help is when someone with the necessary time and technical skills can go through the raw data for these tests and see if more accurate haplogroups can be defined.

Cheers,

Iain.

开云体育