Re: VK389 and Kincaid dna as evidence of Vikings on Clyde river, Scotland?

A321son

Thank you Myles for your insight.

Back around 2007 I had discussions with Dr. Alan James of the Bliton project.? I don't want to imply the following is what he concluded, but at the time of our discussions he thought that 'Galbraith was *gall-Bhreath[nach], a nickname?developing to a surname, analogous to the Gall-Gaidheil.'? So like the later was 'foreign Gael' and Gall-Gaeil means 'foreign Irish', Galbraith was basically 'foreign British' - basically all representing local populations mixed with incoming Norse.? Galbraiths were quite dominant on the north side of the Kelvin river from Garscadden to Milton of Campie (formerly Kincaid) in the 13th and 14th century.? The only other major landowners along this part of the Kelvin then were Lennox, Graham, Colquhoun/Kirkpatrick and Stirling.? There was a Auchinross family who were at one time reasonably large landowners.? From around the middle part of the 1300s the Keiths, Hamiltons, Campbells, and Rosses came along strong as heirs to one of the Galbraiths.?

Re: VK389 and Kincaid dna as evidence of Vikings on Clyde river, Scotland?

#7933

In her book Viking Kings of Britain and Ireland: The Dynasty of Ivarr to A.D. 1014 , I believe that Claire Downham explains that the Irish Sea Vikings used the Clyde as a cross country shortcut for communication with the Kingdom of Northumbria. See <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danelaw>

PhD candidate looking for Noble familes to DNA test

#7932

Found on the U106 Facebook group:
?

He is specifically looking for the Scottish Noble families, but I believe is expanding it to the whole of the United Kingdom.

Ray

Re: VK389 and Kincaid dna as evidence of Vikings on Clyde river, Scotland?

#7931

开云体育

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 20^th 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 1^st 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

?

Show quoted text

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: New paper on early Germanic DNA #AncientDNA

#7930

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

Big y ordered

#7929

Been meaning to do it a while now and a cousin had a story of someone breaking a Brick wall with a slight variation of a surname change.

Only 3 weeks last upgrade can't wait for the results even if it just confirms haplogroup better than m269.

Jason

Ancient human DNA from pendant

#7928

开云体育

Article
Published: 03 May 2023

Here we report the development of a non-destructive method for the gradual release of DNA trapped in ancient bone and tooth artefacts. Application of the method to an Upper Palaeolithic deer tooth pendant from Denisova Cave, Russia, resulted in the recovery of ancient human and deer mitochondrial genomes, which allowed us to estimate the age of the pendant at approximately 19,000–25,000 years.

Re: VK389 and Kincaid dna as evidence of Vikings on Clyde river, Scotland?

A321son

#7927

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: New paper on early Germanic DNA #AncientDNA

#7926

I have quickly scanned the paper and the one item I did not see was whether they used the 1240K set to derive results or if they used the shotgun sequencing (which is more expensive, but yields fuller results). I note this on the spreadsheet I maintain.

Show quoted text

On Sat, Mar 16, 2024 at 5:57?PM Iain via <gubbins=[email protected]> wrote:

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.

A member's ancestor was mentioned.

#7925

https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/19/style/roman-statue-parking-lot-intl-scn-scli/index.html

Re: New paper on early Germanic DNA #AncientDNA

#7924

开云体育

Dear Raymond,

Thank you for your work listing ancient DNA from u106.

I was at least briefly excited to see and entry for FGC 3861>FGC14877 only 58 miles away from my earliest male line ancestor who lived in Pateley Bridge Yorkshire.

(I am R-FGC3861> R-FGC14877> R-FGC21340> (FT30022)> BY85211)

However, I see the line is crossed through and I assume it is therefore incorrect. I used the last link which gave me a FEMALE skeleton

?

~~S20657~~

~~HiSeq 4000~~

c450-c650

~~54.17099~~

~~-0.60574~~

All the best

Nigel Hardcastle

?

Show quoted text

From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Raymond Wing
Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2024 3:59 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [R1b-U106] New paper on early Germanic DNA

?

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.

?

Ray

?

Ray

?

On Sat, Mar 16, 2024 at 5:57?PM Iain via <gubbins=[email protected]> wrote:

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.

Re: New paper on early Germanic DNA #AncientDNA

#7923

Yes, the samples that have been crossed out are samples found to fall outside of U106

Ray

Show quoted text

On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 2:21?PM <peersaf@...> wrote:

Hi Ray,

On your spreadsheet you had a couple graves from the Gretzinger study listed as FGC11784>S6881 and further downstream, however they've a line through them. Is this due to further analysis showing that was not the case or it can't be said for certain? I fully admit I'm invested in finding any graves with these clades hence my faintest of hopes.

Kind regards

Alister

Re: New paper on early Germanic DNA #AncientDNA

#7922

Hi Ray,

On your spreadsheet you had a couple graves from the Gretzinger study listed as FGC11784>S6881 and further downstream, however they've a line through them. Is this due to further analysis showing that was not the case or it can't be said for certain? I fully admit I'm invested in finding any graves with these clades hence my faintest of hopes.

Kind regards

Alister

Re: New paper on early Germanic DNA #AncientDNA

A321son

#7921

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!

Re: New paper on early Germanic DNA #AncientDNA

#7920

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.

Ray

Show quoted text

On Sat, Mar 16, 2024 at 5:57?PM Iain via <gubbins=[email protected]> wrote:

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.

Re: New paper on early Germanic DNA #AncientDNA

#7919

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.

Re: New paper on early Germanic DNA #AncientDNA

#7918

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

Show quoted text

Le sam. 16 mars 2024, 16:47, Richard Youatt <Richard@...> a écrit?:

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
?
?
?
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

Re: New paper on early Germanic DNA #AncientDNA

#7917

开云体育

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

?

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

Re: New paper on early Germanic DNA #AncientDNA

#7916

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

Show quoted text

On Sat, Mar 16, 2024 at 5:51?AM C.B. via <irishZ156=[email protected]> wrote:

Raymond,
HADO18 was not U106>Y19781. He was L21.

颁颈补谤á苍

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

Re: New paper on early Germanic DNA #AncientDNA

#7915

Raymond,

HADO18 was not U106>Y19781. He was L21.

颁颈补谤á苍

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