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!
|
There are several very old Z18 individuals in this paper, with five of them dated to roughly 2000 BCE.? Once the raw data becomes available, these individuals bear a closer look, to see whether they may break up the Z18 clade, which currently consists of 9 equivalent SNPs. As Iain states, these old DNA results are more likely to belong to what are today smaller (or extinct) clades.
I have uploaded all of the results to the U106 Spreadsheet at:
Please note there?are two different sheets with results. One shows them in Chronological order, with the oldest results up top, while the next sheet is in order by clade, roughly corresponding to how the U106 project sorts individuals.
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.
|
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.
|
Hi Ray, all,
Thank you Ray for sharing such a promising paper (with R-U106+ aDNAs in poorly documented countries like France...).
It seems to me that BAM/fastq files are not (yet) available. It is therefore not possible at this time to confirm or refine the haplogroup predictions of these aDNAs.
To determine these Y haplogroups, the researchers in this study used the ISOGG tree, supplemented by YFull data, it seems to me. These two trees are not as complete as that of FTDNA, we could hope that the haplogroup of some of these aDNAs could be refined (or even invalidated in certain cases). FTDNA even compares data from aDNAs to each other, which can sometimes give rise to new branches in the Y tree (probably extinct ones). However, without any fastq file available, we will not be able to learn more from FTDNA. So hopefully these files will be released soon.
Ewenn
Le sam. 16 mars 2024, 16:47, Richard Youatt < Richard@...> a ¨¦crit?: Ray et al: ? I see that I (FTDNA kit 246858? U106/L44) match your entry on line 365 for WPK005? (also? U106/L44) . ? All comments and insights welcome. ? Richard W Youatt FTDNA Kit 246858 ? ? ? ? A new paper came out in pre-print:???
It contains hundreds of Ancient DNA samples (both males and females) including 64 U106+ individuals.? A quick break down of the DNA included 18 Z381+ and 34 Z18+ individuals.
It will take me a while to add them all to my spreadsheet at:??
Ray
|
Ray et al: ? I see that I (FTDNA kit 246858? U106/L44) match your entry on line 365 for WPK005? (also? U106/L44) . ? All comments and insights welcome. ? Richard W Youatt FTDNA Kit 246858 ? ? ?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Raymond Wing
Sent: Friday, March 15, 2024 3:02 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [R1b-U106] New paper on early Germanic DNA #AncientDNA? A new paper came out in pre-print:???
It contains hundreds of Ancient DNA samples (both males and females) including 64 U106+ individuals.? A quick break down of the DNA included 18 Z381+ and 34 Z18+ individuals.
It will take me a while to add them all to my spreadsheet at:??
Ray
|
One of the individuals (CGG106838) from?Kaarebjerg Agre, T?rslev Hage, Gerlev Sogn, Zealand, Denmark dates back to just before the RISE98 individual.? This new individual falls under Z301>FGC13959>S9891 and has been c14 dated 2281-2048 calBCE. This individual will likely cause a recalculation in the age of both FGC13959 and S9891 and may even make Z301 a little bit older than its current estimate.
This makes 2 U106+ samples in what we now call Scandivnavia prior to 2000 BCE, so it appears U106 may have early spread to that area.
Hopefully others may be able to look at this individual to double check the clade and the age.
Ray
Raymond, HADO18 was not U106>Y19781. He was L21.
°ä¾±²¹°ù¨¢²Ô
A new paper came out in pre-print:???
It contains hundreds of Ancient DNA samples (both males and females) including 64 U106+ individuals.? A quick break down of the DNA included 18 Z381+ and 34 Z18+ individuals.
It will take me a while to add them all to my spreadsheet at:??
Ray
|
Raymond, HADO18 was not U106>Y19781. He was L21.
°ä¾±²¹°ù¨¢²Ô
On Friday, March 15, 2024 at 10:02:11 PM UTC, Raymond Wing <wing.genealogist@...> wrote:
A new paper came out in pre-print:???
It contains hundreds of Ancient DNA samples (both males and females) including 64 U106+ individuals.? A quick break down of the DNA included 18 Z381+ and 34 Z18+ individuals.
It will take me a while to add them all to my spreadsheet at:??
Ray
|
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
A new paper came out in pre-print:???
It contains hundreds of Ancient DNA samples (both males and females) including 64 U106+ individuals.? A quick break down of the DNA included 18 Z381+ and 34 Z18+ individuals.
It will take me a while to add them all to my spreadsheet at:??
Ray
|
ray, this looks like the motherlode. thanks for posting.
by the way, do you still maintain the plot of samples? I have lost the URL.
cheers, Roy
|
A new paper came out in pre-print:???
It contains hundreds of Ancient DNA samples (both males and females) including 64 U106+ individuals.? A quick break down of the DNA included 18 Z381+ and 34 Z18+ individuals.
It will take me a while to add them all to my spreadsheet at:??
Ray
|
Re: IFLSCIENCE: The World¡¯s First Cities May Have Been Free Of Social Inequality
Extraordinary.?
But it's a comfortingly familiar story of folk 'subject to intra-settlement mechanisms for reconciling interests and redistributing surpluses that might have been established collectively' eventually deciding they really didn't like being taxed.
?
?
?
?
?
|
Hi °ä¾±²¹°ù¨¢²Ô and all.? I too have done the upgrade and am under S5520. Not just me, but 9 or 10 McMillans under FGC11674/FGC11696 and its parent FGC11665. While I agree with Dr McDonald's views on this, we have a large family under FGC11674/FGC11696 and several of us did this for entertainment purposes. I have notes on several new SNPs and the branches the fit somewhere on below FGC11696/FGC11674. I am going to continue to chase these despite knowing better.? Previous to a recent upgrade, we are the only ones I know of under S5520 that have done the upgrade. Now I see two. A recent Big Y that I assume has been discussed here and a Nebula sample that is coming in. 3 of the McMillan samples that were upgraded are WGS samples, and the best I can tell, have several SNPs not in the Big Y coverage area. I am glad to see the Nebula Sample coming in under S5520 that may clear it up a little and this will help the Big Y sample recently upgraded not too far from each other on the yfull tree.? The new SNPs above FGC11665 are of little interest to me because they are outside a genealogical timeframe, and we already have large unbroken blocks of SNPs there, I would still be interested to know if a S5520 sample is positive for any of them, so I can update my notes. I guess I will see when the tree is updated. My understanding is the "T2T" upgrade Y full is using is the CP086569.2 alignment. I believe this is based off a man from the J1 haplogroup. I wish for R1b people they used the CM034974.1 which was constructed from a R1b person. One day I am sure we will have a better test and a R-U106 reference. My thoughts are until we have long read tests this is all just for fun and perhaps we can gain a couple of SNPs that are useful to split branches or tie a few branches together along the way. I am not going to campaign for people to run out and do this upgrade, but I welcome it. For most people at Yfull, you will just get some more SNPs. As more do it, those will be placed as time goes on.? I think my situation is slightly different. We have around 125/130 Big Y and WGS results in our surname with 75 or so branches. Because we have several results and tested multiple branches of FGC11674, we now have several CP086569.2 SNPs we have identified to those branches. I tried to order a few SNPs to be available for testing at Yseq, and received a reply that they are only currently developing primers for the Hg38 SNPs at this time. All of this may sound a little crazy (and it probably is) but again, we have around 130 Big Y and WGS tests in the family. I am sure at some point there will be a better upgrade, and when worthwhile FTDNA will probably change references in the future. I have already received 3 SNPs from FTDNA's work on this. FTT8, and the more recent FTT32 and FTT33.? That being said our testing has identified several new SNPs between FGC11665 and R-S5520<>z156/S264. Maybe they will help someone.? Here are some notes I have for FGC11665-R-S5520. I have also included 3 SNPs found on my FGC11677 branch where I previously had no private variants. Through tests of known cousins, I know FGC11677 is either my 4th or 5th great grandfather. People that decend from my 4th great grandfather have FGC11677, and a gentleman that comes from my 6th great grandfather does not. We have WGS tests from 2 more branches of FGC11674 that I will probably get around to realigning at WGS Extract in the future and uploading.? Notes on new S5520 SNPs:
?
?
Big Y
Y516411? ? level R-FGC11696<->R-S5520
Y516412? ? level R-FGC11696<->R-S5520
Y508519? ? level R-FGC11665<->R-S5520
Y508520? ? level R-FGC11665<->R-S5520
Y508521? ? level R-FGC11665<->R-S5520
Y508522? ? level R-FGC11665<->R-S5520
?
WGS
Y516414? ? level R-FGC11677<->R-S264
Y502956? ? level R-FGC11677<->R-S264
Y516413? ? level R-FGC11677<->R-S264
Y502955? ? level R-FGC11677<->R-S264
Y502957? ? level R-FGC11677<->R-S264
Y516408? ? level R-FGC11677<->R-S5520 My branch new SNPs:
Y516407? ? level R-FGC11677<->R-FGC11685
Y516410? ? level R-FGC11677<->R-FGC11685
Y516409? ? level R-FGC11677<->R-FGC11685
?
FGC11677 Private
Y491152 level R-FGC11677
Y491150 level R-FGC11677
Y491229 level R-FGC11677
?
?
-Robert McMillan
|
There are no more matches on my kit at YFull probably because the terminal snp is at Y7378 (above what FTdna has as the final), but it's interesting to see the number of snps that are now 'positive' which previously were marked as 'no call' or 'negative'.
On Wednesday, March 13, 2024 at 05:33:43 PM CDT, C.B. via groups.io <irishz156@...> wrote:
| SNPs (all): | 403261 | | | Positive: | 2246?(0.56%) | | | Negative: | 14766?(3.66%) | | | Ambiguous: | 15?(0.00%) | | | No call: | 3843?(0.95%) |
This is from my T2T upgrade | SNPs (all): | 403261 | | | Positive: | 2865?(0.71%) | | | Negative: | 14350?(3.56%) | | | Ambiguous: | 38?(0.01%) | | | No call: | 1725?(0.43%) |
On Saturday, March 9, 2024 at 03:32:16 PM UTC, Kevin Terry <kevintyrry@...> wrote:
Hi °ä¾±²¹°ù¨¢²Ô
Before the upgrade I had two SNP matches at the level Y128031. With one, a BigY500, I had 34 shared SNPs and 20 assumed shared SNPs. With the other, a T2T Nebula Genomics test I had 43 shared SNPs and 5 assumed shared SNPs. After the T2T upgrade with the Big Y500 match I? had 29 shared SNPs and 18 assumed shared SNPs. With the Nebula Genomics test I had 51 shared SNPs and 3 assumed shared SNPs. It would seem that the T2T test brings more certainty to matches, with fewer assumed matches. YFull are revising age estimates.
Because the Nebula Genomics tester only recently uploaded to YFull, I expect the next version of the YTree will show some more branching for me and my two SNP matches.?
Kevin Terry
|
| SNPs (all): | 403261 | | | Positive: | 2246?(0.56%) | | | Negative: | 14766?(3.66%) | | | Ambiguous: | 15?(0.00%) | | | No call: | 3843?(0.95%) |
This is from my T2T upgrade | SNPs (all): | 403261 | | | Positive: | 2865?(0.71%) | | | Negative: | 14350?(3.56%) | | | Ambiguous: | 38?(0.01%) | | | No call: | 1725?(0.43%) |
On Saturday, March 9, 2024 at 03:32:16 PM UTC, Kevin Terry <kevintyrry@...> wrote:
Hi °ä¾±²¹°ù¨¢²Ô
Before the upgrade I had two SNP matches at the level Y128031. With one, a BigY500, I had 34 shared SNPs and 20 assumed shared SNPs. With the other, a T2T Nebula Genomics test I had 43 shared SNPs and 5 assumed shared SNPs. After the T2T upgrade with the Big Y500 match I? had 29 shared SNPs and 18 assumed shared SNPs. With the Nebula Genomics test I had 51 shared SNPs and 3 assumed shared SNPs. It would seem that the T2T test brings more certainty to matches, with fewer assumed matches. YFull are revising age estimates.
Because the Nebula Genomics tester only recently uploaded to YFull, I expect the next version of the YTree will show some more branching for me and my two SNP matches.?
Kevin Terry
|
Re: BigY - is it worth it?
Did a BigY about ten days ago. I look forward to the results!
Best regards,?
|
Kevin I have seven more private YSNPs from the upgrade. That's a total of 12 YSNPs that are specific to my Y line. I will have to wait until Yfull updates their tree to see if it makes a difference to the TMRCA of my main branch.
°ä¾±²¹°ù¨¢²Ô
On Saturday, March 9, 2024 at 03:32:16 PM UTC, Kevin Terry <kevintyrry@...> wrote:
Hi °ä¾±²¹°ù¨¢²Ô
Before the upgrade I had two SNP matches at the level Y128031. With one, a BigY500, I had 34 shared SNPs and 20 assumed shared SNPs. With the other, a T2T Nebula Genomics test I had 43 shared SNPs and 5 assumed shared SNPs. After the T2T upgrade with the Big Y500 match I? had 29 shared SNPs and 18 assumed shared SNPs. With the Nebula Genomics test I had 51 shared SNPs and 3 assumed shared SNPs. It would seem that the T2T test brings more certainty to matches, with fewer assumed matches. YFull are revising age estimates.
Because the Nebula Genomics tester only recently uploaded to YFull, I expect the next version of the YTree will show some more branching for me and my two SNP matches.?
Kevin Terry
|
On Saturday, March 9, 2024 at 03:32:16 PM UTC, Kevin Terry <kevintyrry@...> wrote:
Hi °ä¾±²¹°ù¨¢²Ô
Before the upgrade I had two SNP matches at the level Y128031. With one, a BigY500, I had 34 shared SNPs and 20 assumed shared SNPs. With the other, a T2T Nebula Genomics test I had 43 shared SNPs and 5 assumed shared SNPs. After the T2T upgrade with the Big Y500 match I? had 29 shared SNPs and 18 assumed shared SNPs. With the Nebula Genomics test I had 51 shared SNPs and 3 assumed shared SNPs. It would seem that the T2T test brings more certainty to matches, with fewer assumed matches. YFull are revising age estimates.
Because the Nebula Genomics tester only recently uploaded to YFull, I expect the next version of the YTree will show some more branching for me and my two SNP matches.?
Kevin Terry
|
Re: VK389 and Kincaid dna as evidence of Vikings on Clyde river, Scotland?
Thanks again Dr. McDonald for your input.? So while I can conclude that R-A321 is a Campsie parish snp, any thoughts on prior history will have to wait until one of the gap snps pop up in an ancient dna or other non R-A321 person.? After 20 years of waiting for dna answers it's just getting hard to keep waiting.
I do think this cluster of neighbors being all I-DF29 snp could be significant in spite of its apparent age.? The Jews are a 4500 year old branch that for almost the past 2000 years clustered around the world based on their shared heritage.? My family hasn't lived in Scotland for probably a little under 400 years, but we still look to Scotland with strong sentiments.? I suspect that Scots 1000 years ago kept in mind their old tribe and ancestral homes.
|
Hi °ä¾±²¹°ù¨¢²Ô
Before the upgrade I had two SNP matches at the level Y128031. With one, a BigY500, I had 34 shared SNPs and 20 assumed shared SNPs. With the other, a T2T Nebula Genomics test I had 43 shared SNPs and 5 assumed shared SNPs. After the T2T upgrade with the Big Y500 match I? had 29 shared SNPs and 18 assumed shared SNPs. With the Nebula Genomics test I had 51 shared SNPs and 3 assumed shared SNPs. It would seem that the T2T test brings more certainty to matches, with fewer assumed matches. YFull are revising age estimates.
Because the Nebula Genomics tester only recently uploaded to YFull, I expect the next version of the YTree will show some more branching for me and my two SNP matches.?
Kevin Terry
|
Hello Kevin I am interested in this upgrade. Have you learned anything? Is it worth it?
°ä¾±²¹°ù¨¢²Ô
On Friday, March 8, 2024 at 07:19:56 PM UTC, Kevin Terry <kevintyrry@...> wrote:
I received my T2T results today. Attached shows the difference with the upgrade. It will take me some time to digest this!?
--
Kevin Terry
|
Ewenn
Al
Kevin Terry