Steppe Ancestry in western Eurasia and the spread of the Germanic Languages

[Rodoorn]

Shouldn't the real big bang of U106 have happened already in the single grave culture (SGC, 2800-2050 BC)?

map taken from  Verbreitungskarte der Einzelgrabkultur in Europa :: Landesmuseum für Vorgeschichte Halle :: museum-digital:deutschland

SGC reaches into Sachsen-Anhalt, explaining why it appears in Unetice (e.g. Leubingen). It also reaches into the Netherlands.

And an add already this title from archeologist JN Lanting (2013) reveals much:

"Eight grave finds from the Veluwe Bell Beaker Group as a starting point for chronological reflections on the relationships between Saalisch-Bohemian Schnurkeramik, Single Grave Culture, Bell Beaker East Group and Dutch-West German Bell Beaker groups"

[Rodoorn]

With regard to the Netherlands and R1b U106 (spreadsheet), we see that the gross of "Germanic subclades"- as part of the South Scandic cluster of the paper- are indeed 400AD>.

[Rodoorn]

And I forgot one NW block -ESN cluster- kind of subclade, Z381



Makes imo that especially R1b U106 Z304 and Z381 are typical of ESN/NW Block. And don't belong to the Germanic lineage (seen as the South Scandic cluster of the paper) that rushed in 400 AD>

[alanarchae]

I have no knowledge to speak of in terms of U106 subclades but it seems fair to say that Denmark in this paper produced a hell of a lot of it from the EBA onwards. It seems Jutland is the place where U106 really fell on fertile ground and flourished hugely in the bronze age.

I am a bit hazy on what the earliest U106 in Denmark is. They struggled to find early single grave Danish samples didn’t they?

[Strider99]

must admit I am slightly struggling to compare this paper with https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06862-3

Alentoft seems to state that Danish beaker era (dagger period) cluster with west and central Europeans, apparently implying a shift from an older higher steppe CW/single grave group into took place c.2300BC. So Alentoft  seems to include a kind of beaker/very early post-beaker phase c. 2300-1800BCthat the new paper doesn’t. Or at least it seems to skip over it despite apparently noting both the early CW phase and the post-2000BC wave from the Baltic.

I’d need to check again but didn’t the new paper have a lack of samples from western Jutland?  the area geographically closest to the beaker derivatives eastern north sea group. Also, correct me if i’m wrong but we’re a couple of beaker phase burials in Denmark not previously shown to be P312? Maybe Borreby?

As others have pointed out, the new paper seems to miss out some archaeologically relevant facts.

I'm having trouble finding it in the paper (maybe it's gone after an update?) but here's a line quoted on Genomic Atlas https://genomicatlas.org/2022/07/15/from...-neolithic

“Interestingly, more fine-scale sub-haplogroup placements of those individuals revealed that Y chromosome lineages distinguished samples from distinct genetic clusters inferred from autosomal IBD sharing (Fig. S3b.6, S3b.7). In particular, individuals associated with the Scandinavian cluster Scandinavia_4200BP_3200BP were all placed within the sub-haplogroup R1b1a1b1a1a1 (R1b-U106), whereas the two Scandinavian males associated with the Western European cluster Europe_4500BP_2000BP were placed within R1b1a1b1a1a2 (R1b-P312) (Fig. 928 S3b.7)”. 

I'm guessing any Beaker influence would be limited to Jutland, the islands seem to be the territory of more northern R-Z18 and I1 until later continental influences.

@NewEnglander About that part from Allentoft: You can find it by following this link to the old preprint and downloading the Supplementary Information (part 1.) That particular quote is found on page 42 of the SI. Since the study was split into multiple smaller studies later on, I'm not sure which study's SI (if any) it ended up in. In any case, that whole document is definitely worth a read!

[Rodoorn]

The point is that Germanic has been difficult to set within the IE family tree. It shares features with several branches, but on the other hand shows developments which separate it from the other branches. Germanic-Italic-Celtic is no more valid than Germanic-Baltic-Slavic, and it is possible that all these shared features with all other branches are acquired by contacts after the initial separation of Germanic.

My hunch-based on this schizophrenic situation- is that on the Danish Isles and surrounding areas influences of the Italo-Celtic NW Euro colluded with more NE Euro Balto-Slavic....with Germanic as result.

[Rodoorn]

I have no knowledge to speak of in terms of U106 subclades but it seems fair to say that Denmark in this paper produced a hell of a lot of it from the EBA onwards. It seems Jutland is the place where U106 really fell on fertile ground and flourished hugely in the bronze age.

I am a bit hazy on what the earliest U106 in Denmark is. They struggled to find early single grave  Danish samples didn’t they?

That knowledge is presented here Alanarchae, so you can draw your own conclusions Alanarchae.

We can clearly see a "split" in Z18 which was initial unique Scandic, Danish Islands based (so the SGC influx?). Z18 came later on to the North Sea (England, Friesland).

And the more NW block oriented Z304 and Z381 that circulated much more in post BB, Unetice etc.

And yes on the sandy grounds (on Jutland, NE Dutch) due to acidity the bones get disolved.....

[alanarchae]

Shouldn't the real big bang of U106 have happened already in the single grave culture (SGC, 2800-2050 BC)?

map taken from  Verbreitungskarte der Einzelgrabkultur in Europa :: Landesmuseum für Vorgeschichte Halle :: museum-digital:deutschland

SGC reaches into Sachsen-Anhalt, explaining why it appears in Unetice (e.g. Leubingen). It also reaches into the Netherlands.

May be in Denmark with Z18.

But I don't think this is the case in the Netherlands. Alanarchae already pointed at a relative late entre in the BB circuit in the Netherlands (2200-2100 BC). I think it is Bohemian/ East Beaker, early Unetice based.

This is what Iain Mc Donald stated to me a few years ago when I got the DNA result - DF96- of my grandfather (mother's side).

"We think that R-Z156 and later R-Z304 and R-DF96, arose from the Unetice Culture around modern Prague in the period 2300-1700 BC."

The state of the art of the R1b U106 Z304 samples especially in the NW Block area- the ESN cluster- confirms this.

The network of the BB continued most probably in Unetice times.

PS I checked in the R1b U106 spreadsheet, but the oldest samples R1b U106 Molenaarsgraaf "BB" Netherlands is even later: 2136-1892 calBCE. He has no definite subclade but is Z18-.

that last date is kind of borderline to be included in bell beaker culture. I’d say it’s likely post-bell beaker though that depends on how you define it. It’s certainly posh bell beaker in the isles and most of Europe. I don’t tend to include that kind of barbed wire beaker era as bell beaker as most of Europe had well defined post-beaker  EBA cultures by then. Unetice/Wessex/Food Vessel/Armorican Dagger etc. Unetice of course saw a shift in yDNA in its core area. There was a clear shakeup in central Germany etc in the Unetice era.

[Rodoorn]

Shouldn't the real big bang of U106 have happened already in the single grave culture (SGC, 2800-2050 BC)?

map taken from  Verbreitungskarte der Einzelgrabkultur in Europa :: Landesmuseum für Vorgeschichte Halle :: museum-digital:deutschland

SGC reaches into Sachsen-Anhalt, explaining why it appears in Unetice (e.g. Leubingen). It also reaches into the Netherlands.

May be in Denmark with Z18.

But I don't think this is the case in the Netherlands. Alanarchae already pointed at a relative late entre in the BB circuit in the Netherlands (2200-2100 BC). I think it is Bohemian/ East Beaker, early Unetice based.

This is what Iain Mc Donald stated to me a few years ago when I got the DNA result - DF96- of my grandfather (mother's side).

"We think that R-Z156 and later R-Z304 and R-DF96, arose from the Unetice Culture around modern Prague in the period 2300-1700 BC."

The state of the art of the R1b U106 Z304 samples especially in the NW Block area- the ESN cluster- confirms this.

The network of the BB continued most probably in Unetice times.

PS I checked in the R1b U106 spreadsheet, but the oldest samples R1b U106 Molenaarsgraaf "BB" Netherlands is even later: 2136-1892 calBCE. He has no definite subclade but is Z18-.

that last date is kind of borderline to be included in bell beaker culture. I’d say it’s likely post-bell beaker though that depends on how you define it. It’s certainly posh bell beaker in the isles and most of Europe. I don’t tend to include that kind of barbed wire beaker era as bell beaker as most of Europe had well defined post-beaker  EBA cultures by then. Unetice/Wessex/Food Vessel/Armorican Dagger etc. Unetice of course saw a shift in yDNA in its core area. There was a clear shakeup in central Germany etc in the Unetice era.

Hahahaha see above some likewise thoughts. Zwei Seelen und ein Gedanke

Unetice is nothing more than BB and CW united (according to Harald Meller).

And indeed with the formation of Unetice there was an influx of especially NE Euro influx.

[alanarchae]

I have no knowledge to speak of in terms of U106 subclades but it seems fair to say that Denmark in this paper produced a hell of a lot of it from the EBA onwards. It seems Jutland is the place where U106 really fell on fertile ground and flourished hugely in the bronze age.

I am a bit hazy on what the earliest U106 in Denmark is. They struggled to find early single grave  Danish samples didn’t they?

That knowledge is presented here Alanarchae, so you can draw your own conclusions Alanarchae.

We can clearly see a "split" in Z18 which was initial unique Scandic, Danish Islands based (so the SGC influx?). Z18 came later to the North Sea (England, Friesland)

And the more NW block oriented Z304 and Z381 that circulated much more in post BB, Unetice etc.

And yes on the sandy grounds (on Jutland, NE Dutch) due to acidity the bones get disolved.....

I see Z304 is given a TMRCA of 2150BC by FTDNA discover. Even one step up ancestor is given 2200BC. So it looks like it dates towards the end of the beaker age (post beaker in terms of many countries terminology

[Rodoorn]

I have no knowledge to speak of in terms of U106 subclades but it seems fair to say that Denmark in this paper produced a hell of a lot of it from the EBA onwards. It seems Jutland is the place where U106 really fell on fertile ground and flourished hugely in the bronze age.

I am a bit hazy on what the earliest U106 in Denmark is. They struggled to find early single grave  Danish samples didn’t they?

That knowledge is presented here Alanarchae, so you can draw your own conclusions Alanarchae.

We can clearly see a "split" in Z18 which was initial unique Scandic, Danish Islands based (so the SGC influx?). Z18 came later to the North Sea (England, Friesland)

And the more NW block oriented Z304 and Z381 that circulated much more in post BB, Unetice etc.

And yes on the sandy grounds (on Jutland, NE Dutch) due to acidity the bones get disolved.....

I see Z304 is given a TMRCA of 2150BC by FTDNA discover. Even one step up ancestor is given 2200BC. So it looks like it dates towards the end of the beaker age (post beaker in terms of many countries terminology

Indeed they missed the boat

[Rodoorn]

This is still one of the remarkable passages in the paper,

"On the Danish Isles we see discontinuity from around 1600 BP (Extended Data Figure 6).
Between 1600 BP and 1230 BP the limited number of samples limits our ability to
genetically determine the precise timing and nature of this transition. Sampling density
improves from 1230 BP, in the 100 years leading up to the Viking Age, by which point we
see a distinct transition has occurred. This transition is visible at a variety of resolutions.

From the Bronze Age modelling, we see an increase in the proportion of Southern
Scandinavian ancestry on Zealand by 1230 BP (Extended Data Figure 9). In the Iron Age
(2000 – 1575 BP), the only regions with high proportions of Southern Scandinavian ancestry
are Jutland and Germany. In Northern Jutland, the proportion of Southern Scandinavian
ancestry remains relatively constant. In both regions, by the Viking Age, many individuals
carry a series of ancestries previously only found further south and west – ENS Bronze Age,
Bell Beaker/Celtic Bronze Age and European Farmer.

By including the two Iron Age Southern Scandinavian clusters in the sources (Jutland and
Mecklenburg) together with two Iron Age Eastern Scandinavian clusters (Danish Isles and
Sweden), we are able to further disentangle these migrations (Extended Data Figure 11). The
Danish Isles ancestry that was widespread on Zealand from 2200 BP disappears from ~1600
BP. For the few samples between 1600 BP and 1230 BP we find instead a variety of
ancestries, Swedish Iron Age, Celtic Iron Age, Norwegian Iron Age, and Jutlandic (check)
Iron Age. In Northern Jutland, this additional resolution reveals a transition within the
constant proportion Bronze Age Southern Scandinavian ancestry. Prior to 1600 BP it is
modelled as North Jutlandic IA ancestry, which gradually shifts to become primarily
modelled as North German IA ancestry. Small proportions of Jutlandic IA ancestry are
modelled in many later individuals, which is in direct contrast to Zealand, where it appears a
population replacement occurred.

From 1230 BP until 800 BP, including the Viking Age, we see most individuals modelled
primarily with small proportions of ancestries that prior to 1575 BP were only found south of
Scandinavia: ENS ancestry of the East North Sea coast, Northern German ancestry from
Mecklenburg and Celtic ancestry of the Britain and Ireland and France, and European
Farming ancestry found in western Europe (Extended Data Figures 9 - 11). On Zealand and
the Baltic Islands we also detect a number of individuals with Baltic (Estonian Bronze Age)
ancestry, similar to populations associated with the Slavic-related populations. In addition to
these non-local ancestries, many of these individuals are modelled with small proportions of
East, West and South Scandinavian ancestry primarily found within Scandinavia during the
Iron Age. Although in Northern Jutland, we have evidence of admixture between the local
Iron Age population and the incoming Migration Period population, suggesting that
admixture at this time occurred within Scandinavia. However, we cannot exclude the
possibility of admixture between the more southern sources and the Scandinavian IA sources
occuring in the unsampled regions of Southern Jutland or continental Europe."

Is this the short Version?
Danish Isles IA ancestry went 400 AD to the North Sea to Friesland and England, the gap was filled with an amalgam of NW and NE European ancestry?

[Jaska]

The point is that Germanic has been difficult to set within the IE family tree. It shares features with several branches, but on the other hand shows developments which separate it from the other branches. Germanic-Italic-Celtic is no more valid than Germanic-Baltic-Slavic, and it is possible that all these shared features with all other branches are acquired by contacts after the initial separation of Germanic.

My hunch-based on this schizophrenic situation- is that on the Danish Isles and surrounding areas influences of the Italo-Celtic NW Euro colluded with more NE Euro Balto-Slavic....with Germanic as result.

This contradicts with the result that it would have preserved archaic features like Anatolian. Germanic also apparently has not participated in the earliest or most changes of these other branches, but shares random features with them. Therefore it does not seem likely that Germanic would only have been born secondarily by a mixture of Italo-Celtic and Balto-Slavic.

[Rodoorn]

Must have been a "social earthquake" on the Danish Isles.

This was the initial realm (Johan Nicolay 2007):


This is the situation in Roman, Migration times, with Gudme as center......

But then.....

"One of the earliest examples is the great hall at Gudme, which is often considered the prototype of the large wooden halls, which continued to dominate in the Northwestern European landscape until the 10th century.

Gudme-Lundeborg was an important regional centre. The total settlement area is considered to have covered about a hundred ha, of which only three have been excavated. Likely, the settlement at Gudme was located in a religious and spiritual landscape. At the centre, archaeologists found a vast hall covering almost 500m2. Nearby, a smaller hall was found covering between 200 – 250m2. Later, in the 5th century, the complex was reduced and a smaller hall replaced the larger. Finally, in the early 6th century Gudme was abandoned. "

A big power shift, and a new central place, Lejre:

The Skjǫldungar in Lejre
"In two sites some 500 meters apart in Lejre (Figs. 3.3 and 3.4) have been excavated seven,
possibly eight, successive halls spanning the early 6th to early 11th centuries. The earliest
hall, built on the northern site, was 45 meters long and 7 meters wide. Possibly, this hall
was replaced by a similar hall that was demolished in the early 7th century. At that time,
a strikingly similar hall was built on the southern site. Here, six successive halls were
built, three on each of two neighbouring ridges. They were 45–48 meters long and 10–12
meters wide. The last hall was demolished shortly after the turn of the millennium. "

Do sages, legends, Beowulf describe this dazzling kind of shifts?

[NewEnglander]

Must have been a "social earthquake" on the Danish Isles.

This was the initial realm (Johan Nicolay 2007):


This is the situation in Roman, Migration times, with Gudme as center......

But then.....

"One of the earliest examples is the great hall at Gudme, which is often considered the prototype of the large wooden halls, which continued to dominate in the Northwestern European landscape until the 10th century.

Gudme-Lundeborg was an important regional centre. The total settlement area is considered to have covered about a hundred ha, of which only three have been excavated. Likely, the settlement at Gudme was located in a religious and spiritual landscape. At the centre, archaeologists found a vast hall covering almost 500m2. Nearby, a smaller hall was found covering between 200 – 250m2. Later, in the 5th century, the complex was reduced and a smaller hall replaced the larger. Finally, in the early 6th century Gudme was abandoned. "

A big power shift, and a new central place, Lejre:

The Skjǫldungar in Lejre
"In two sites some 500 meters apart in Lejre (Figs. 3.3 and 3.4) have been excavated seven,
possibly eight, successive halls spanning the early 6th to early 11th centuries. The earliest
hall, built on the northern site, was 45 meters long and 7 meters wide. Possibly, this hall
was replaced by a similar hall that was demolished in the early 7th century. At that time,
a strikingly similar hall was built on the southern site. Here, six successive halls were
built, three on each of two neighbouring ridges. They were 45–48 meters long and 10–12
meters wide. The last hall was demolished shortly after the turn of the millennium. "

Do sages, legends, Beowulf describe this dazzling kind of shifts?

The Germanic tradition seems to have a sort of melancholic fatalism, a recognition that even if you or your group is on the top of the world at one moment, it will inevitably fall. Makes me think of the ending of Beowulf, or the Anglo-Saxon poem The Wanderer. Even the gods themselves are set to fall.