#7912

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

#7913

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

#7914

here

Show quoted text

On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 6:02?PM 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

#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

#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

#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

#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

#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.

#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.

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!

#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

#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

#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.

#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.

#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

A321son

#7971

I've been watching my Ancient Connections under Family Tree DNA's Discover reports to see if they add any samples from this new study to my list of connections.? I just noticed they have one sample they called?Vor Frue Kirkeg?rd 454 which is apparently ancient dna sample?CGG100454_4 from Barrie et al. 2024.? I see William Barrie was one of the contributors to the McColl et all 2024 study this thread refers to.? McColl et al has a lot of samples starting with CGG.? Could CGG100454_4 be one of the samples we've been waiting for more detailed information on from McColl et al 2024?

I don't see CGG100454_4 listed in Raymond Wing's spreadsheet.? I assume he would be sub U106 to be one of my ancient connections as I am R-FTE9331 which is sub R-FGC12993/R-A321.

#7972

The Barrie . paper is actually a different paper.??I just downloaded the supplementary material and will need to extract the U106+ individuals from it.

Ray

Show quoted text

On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 12:17?PM A321son via <bpkgroups=[email protected]> wrote:

I've been watching my Ancient Connections under Family Tree DNA's Discover reports to see if they add any samples from this new study to my list of connections.? I just noticed they have one sample they called?Vor Frue Kirkeg?rd 454 which is apparently ancient dna sample?CGG100454_4 from Barrie et al. 2024.? I see William Barrie was one of the contributors to the McColl et all 2024 study this thread refers to.? McColl et al has a lot of samples starting with CGG.? Could CGG100454_4 be one of the samples we've been waiting for more detailed information on from McColl et al 2024?

I don't see CGG100454_4 listed in Raymond Wing's spreadsheet.? I assume he would be sub U106 to be one of my ancient connections as I am R-FTE9331 which is sub R-FGC12993/R-A321.

#7973

There are 10 individuals in this paper who fall under U106. They all are dated between 1000 AD to as recent as the 18th Century, CGG100454 was dated 1536-1806 so will not be included in the ancient DNA spreadsheet I maintain. Only six of these individuals will be appearing as the rest are too recent (Post-medieval).

Ray

Show quoted text

On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 3:43?PM Raymond Wing <wing.genealogist@...> wrote:

The Barrie . paper is actually a different paper.??I just downloaded the supplementary material and will need to extract the U106+ individuals from it.

Ray

On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 12:17?PM A321son via <bpkgroups=[email protected]> wrote:
I've been watching my Ancient Connections under Family Tree DNA's Discover reports to see if they add any samples from this new study to my list of connections.? I just noticed they have one sample they called?Vor Frue Kirkeg?rd 454 which is apparently ancient dna sample?CGG100454_4 from Barrie et al. 2024.? I see William Barrie was one of the contributors to the McColl et all 2024 study this thread refers to.? McColl et al has a lot of samples starting with CGG.? Could CGG100454_4 be one of the samples we've been waiting for more detailed information on from McColl et al 2024?

I don't see CGG100454_4 listed in Raymond Wing's spreadsheet.? I assume he would be sub U106 to be one of my ancient connections as I am R-FTE9331 which is sub R-FGC12993/R-A321.

A321son

#7974

Thanks again Raymond.? Nice to have a few more ancient dna!? I was thinking there might be some overlap with the ancient remains being used for the Barrie et al study because of the CGG labels.? I look forward to your spreadsheet updates.

#7975

Vor Frue Kirkegard 454, found in Aalborg, Denmark was a descendant of Y-7378. According to FTdna, he is one of my father's 'rare' connections with only 1124 kits matching. I'm not sure how it configures but my dad is 1 in 276.

I believe it is on Raymond's spreadsheet under a different sample name.

On Monday, April 15, 2024 at 11:17:06 AM CDT, A321son via groups.io <bpkgroups@...> wrote:

I've been watching my Ancient Connections under Family Tree DNA's Discover reports to see if they add any samples from this new study to my list of connections.? I just noticed they have one sample they called?Vor Frue Kirkeg?rd 454 which is apparently ancient dna sample?CGG100454_4 from Barrie et al. 2024.? I see William Barrie was one of the contributors to the McColl et all 2024 study this thread refers to.? McColl et al has a lot of samples starting with CGG.? Could CGG100454_4 be one of the samples we've been waiting for more detailed information on from McColl et al 2024?

I don't see CGG100454_4 listed in Raymond Wing's spreadsheet.? I assume he would be sub U106 to be one of my ancient connections as I am R-FTE9331 which is sub R-FGC12993/R-A321.