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

[NewEnglander]

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.....

There seems to be a clear division in pottery between Jutland and the Islands too at this time.

"The beakers found on the Danish Islands can be compared to those of Southeastern Jutland, Eastern Schleswig-Holstein, Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania and the lower Oder rather than those of the Jutland Single Grave core area of West-Central Jutland... Likewise, no Swedish Battle Axe culture beakers are known from Denmark, showing that, when it comes to pottery, some very well-defined borders were sustained that demarcated the Danish Islands from both the Jutland Single Grave culture and the Swedish Battle Axe culture." https://static-curis.ku.dk/portal/files/...PA292_.pdf

[Rodoorn]

Open question. What confused a fellow reader is this.

Passage 1.
In contrast to previous studies, which relied on Scandinavian samples postdating the
Migration Period 47, we can now reject the Danish Isles and Sweden as a source area for the
Anglo-Saxons in Britain, as these were dominated by Eastern Scandinavian ancestry prior to
the Viking Age (Figure 6).

Passage 2.
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.

My "fellow reader" concludes, the Danish Isles ancestry that disappeared from Zealand 1600 ybp can't be the ones who went to England because of the first passage....

So he concludes it most be the Southern Scandinavian cluster from Jutland and Mecklenburg.

What do you think.

By the way when he is right it is "strange" because as Angles has figured out my parents are "pure Danish IA" from Zealand.....

Who can make me wiser???????

Thanks!!

[CGPF]

Open question. What confused a fellow reader is this.

Passage 1.
In contrast to previous studies, which relied on Scandinavian samples postdating the
Migration Period 47, we can now reject the Danish Isles and Sweden as a source area for the
Anglo-Saxons in Britain, as these were dominated by Eastern Scandinavian ancestry prior to
the Viking Age (Figure 6).

Passage 2.
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.

My "fellow reader" concludes, the Danish Isles ancestry that disappeared from Zealand 1600 ybp can't be the ones who went to England because of the first passage....

So he concludes it most be the Southern Scandinavian cluster from Jutland and Mecklenburg.

What do you think.

By the way when he is right it is "strange" because as Angles has figured out my parents are "pure Danish IA" from Zealand.....

Who can make me wiser???????

Thanks!!

Passage 1 puzzled me as well and I doubt whether it is backed-up by sufficient evidence. At least figure 6 does not convince. Data from Västragötaland and south Sweden are not included in the comparison, so it cannot be excluded as a source. Besides, the movement of the south Scandinavians (see dark green squares below) can very well be interpreted as movement from the Danish Isles to Britain.

[Rodoorn]

Open question. What confused a fellow reader is this.

Passage 1.
In contrast to previous studies, which relied on Scandinavian samples postdating the
Migration Period 47, we can now reject the Danish Isles and Sweden as a source area for the
Anglo-Saxons in Britain, as these were dominated by Eastern Scandinavian ancestry prior to
the Viking Age (Figure 6).

Passage 2.
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.

My "fellow reader" concludes, the Danish Isles ancestry that disappeared from Zealand 1600 ybp can't be the ones who went to England because of the first passage....

So he concludes it most be the Southern Scandinavian cluster from Jutland and Mecklenburg.

What do you think.

By the way when he is right it is "strange" because as Angles has figured out my parents are "pure Danish IA" from Zealand.....

Who can make me wiser???????

Thanks!!

Passage 1 puzzled me as well and I doubt whether it is backed-up by sufficient evidence. At least figure 6 does not convince. Data from Västragötaland and south Sweden are not included in the comparison, so it cannot be excluded as a source. Besides, the movement of the south Scandinavians (see dark green squares below) can very well be interpreted as movement from the Danish Isles to Britain.

Thanks CGPF, may be also an inconstancy due to writing a paper with so much contributors?

Anyhow the link between North Dutch and Danish IA and even BA seems the be quite well proven. 

In other words related to the paper:

"The Danish Isles ancestry that was widespread on Zealand from 2200 BP disappears from ~1600 
BP."

They went partly to the North Dutch area.

Why?
With many thanks to Angles.

First the Qadm of my parents:

The p-values of the nested models are astronomic. According to this analysis Finn's (=Rodoorn) parents are "pure" Danish from the Iron Age. Btw Denmark_IA is for the three individuals from Margaryan. Of course I used imputed genomes for Finn's parents (947035 SNPs). For the experts, I've taken the risk to keep the transitions.

Then the genetic distances of my mother:
NEO857_A Denmark_BA 0.247068 East Jutland
RISE47_A Denmark_BA 0.251389 North Jutland
NEO815_A Denmark_BA 0.25159 Bornholm
VK213_A Denmark_IA 0.252031 Sealand
VK582_A Denmark_IA 0.252548 Mid Jutland
VK214_A Denmark_BA 0.254003 Sealand
NEO946_A Denmark_BA 0.255249 Sealand
NEO93_A Denmark_BA 0.255915 Sealand
NEO563_A Denmark_BA 0.256209 Sealand
VK532_A Denmark_IA 0.256718 Sealand
VK521_A Denmark_IA 0.25701 Sealand
NEO590_A Denmark_BA 0.25719 Sealand
NEO752_A Denmark_BA 0.257631 Sealand
NEO951_A Denmark_BA 0.260821 North Jutland

I guess......this quote

 "we can now reject the Danish Isles and Sweden as a source area for the Anglo-Saxons"

is not valid!

[Rodoorn]

ᛝ Ing ƿæs ærest mid Eástdenum
geseƿen secgum, oð he síððan e[á]st
ofer ƿæg geƿát. ƿæn æfter ran.
þus Heardingas þone hæle nemdon.

ᛝ Ing was first amidst the East Danes
seen by men, until he eastward
over the sea departed; his wagon ran after.
Thus the Heardings named that hero.

[JonikW]

I hope you'll forgive an off topic post regarding some of the themes just raised in this thread. It does at least bear on the credibility of the paper as a whole… As some of you know, my main historical interest is the English settlements so those sections of the paper really grabbed my attention (as well as the findings on my I-M253 haplogroup of course). 

The authors use previously published samples (they only include two English samples of their own, both from Roman Gloucestershire) and seem to have established some really important facts about the settler populations across the three traditional shorthand groupings of Angles, Saxons and Jutes. 

These passages in particular interested me (I posted them last weekend on the Anglo-Saxon aDNA thread), including one that Rodoorn quoted in his posts above. The findings they contain are in no way surprising as such for the informed archaeologist or historian but the authors apparently demonstrate these things for the first time using aDNA:

This:

“Here we find almost all samples from England fall within the Southern Scandinavian clusters, restricting the range from the Netherlands to Jutland (Extended Data Figure 7). By adding a second Iron Age Southern Scandinavian source from Mecklenburg, Northern Germany, we are able to distinguish between the two Southern Scandinavian IA sources, allowing us to restrict this range further (Extended Data Figure 7). We find Southern Scandinavian ancestry in almost all Saxons from England, Frisians from the Netherlands and Iron Age Germans to be modelled as the Northern German source.”

This:

“In Britain between 1575 and 1200 BP, we find some outliers modelled with North Jutlandic IA rather than North German IA ancestry (Extended Data Figure 8). Although bias in sampling may mean that the specific region and timing of the arrival of individuals with this profile cannot be identified, the heterogeneity present is expected due to the various homelands of the Angles, Saxons and Jutes along the Eastern North Sea coast migrating to Britain during this period. By the Viking Age, we detect Eastern Scandinavian and Western  Scandinavian ancestries across Britain and its Islands, representing Viking migrations from Sweden and Norway. Although migration from Denmark is likely during this period, the close relation between the Anglo-Saxons and the Danish Vikings limits our ability to detect this migration.”

And this:

“In contrast to previous studies, which relied on Scandinavian samples postdating the Migration Period, we can now reject the Danish Isles and Sweden as a source area for the Anglo-Saxons in Britain, as these were dominated by Eastern Scandinavian ancestry prior to the Viking Age (Figure 6).”

They couldn't have worded things more plainly so I'd be very interested if it turns out they've got the thrust of it wrong. I must admit I'm really struggling with the colourised system in this paper, partly due to the sheer number of samples and population groups involved. I also note an unusually high number of typos, even for a preprint, which doesn't instill confidence, including that glaringly overlooked reminder to “(check)” a statement.

As I just said, key findings for AS England outlined in the passages above by no means came as a surprise: that Southern Scandinavian ancestry was a key component in the Anglo-Saxon settlers while East Scandinavian ancestry was lacking. 

I've never suspected significant involvement by immigrants from Sweden but I've long been intrigued by apparent parallels in the art and archaeology of the kind we see at Sutton Hoo and felt that some level of at least elite movement was quite likely. 

“We can now reject the Danish Isles and Sweden as a source area for the Anglo-Saxons in Britain” is an important statement on that score, although it wouldn't completely rule out the Wuffingas of Sutton Hoo, for example, or other elite individuals in eastern England having come from Sweden. So I for one will be very interested in how the final published paper deals with the East Scandinavian component in Migration Period England.

EDIT: Changed a "the" to an "a".

[Rodoorn]

I hope you'll forgive an off topic post regarding some of the themes just raised in this thread. It does at least bear on the credibility of the paper as a whole… As some of you know, my main historical interest is the English settlements so those sections of the paper really grabbed my attention (as well as the findings on my I-M253 haplogroup of course). 

The authors use previously published samples (they only include two English samples of their own, both from Roman Gloucestershire) and seem to have established some really important facts about the settler populations across the three traditional shorthand groupings of Angles, Saxons and Jutes. 

These passages in particular interested me (I posted them last weekend on the Anglo-Saxon aDNA thread), including one that Rodoorn quoted in his posts above. The findings they contain are in no way surprising as such for the informed archaeologist or historian but the authors apparently demonstrate these things for the first time using aDNA:

This:

“Here we find almost all samples from England fall within the Southern Scandinavian clusters, restricting the range from the Netherlands to Jutland (Extended Data Figure 7). By adding a second Iron Age Southern Scandinavian source from Mecklenburg, Northern Germany, we are able to distinguish between the two Southern Scandinavian IA sources, allowing us to restrict this range further (Extended Data Figure 7). We find Southern Scandinavian ancestry in almost all Saxons from England, Frisians from the Netherlands and Iron Age Germans to be modelled as the Northern German source.”

This:

“In Britain between 1575 and 1200 BP, we find some outliers modelled with North Jutlandic IA rather than North German IA ancestry (Extended Data Figure 8). Although bias in sampling may mean that the specific region and timing of the arrival of individuals with this profile cannot be identified, the heterogeneity present is expected due to the various homelands of the Angles, Saxons and Jutes along the Eastern North Sea coast migrating to Britain during this period. By the Viking Age, we detect Eastern Scandinavian and Western  Scandinavian ancestries across Britain and its Islands, representing Viking migrations from Sweden and Norway. Although migration from Denmark is likely during this period, the close relation between the Anglo-Saxons and the Danish Vikings limits our ability to detect this migration.”

And this:

“In contrast to previous studies, which relied on Scandinavian samples postdating the Migration Period, we can now reject the Danish Isles and Sweden as a source area for the Anglo-Saxons in Britain, as these were dominated by Eastern Scandinavian ancestry prior to the Viking Age (Figure 6).”

They couldn't have worded things more plainly so I'd be very interested if it turns out they've got the thrust of it wrong. I must admit I'm really struggling with the colourised system in this paper, partly due to the sheer number of samples and population groups involved. I also note an unusually high number of typos, even for a preprint, which doesn't instill confidence, including that glaringly overlooked reminder to “(check)” a statement.

As I just said, key findings for AS England outlined in the passages above by no means came as a surprise: that Southern Scandinavian ancestry was a key component in the Anglo-Saxon settlers while East Scandinavian ancestry was lacking. 

I've never suspected significant involvement by immigrants from Sweden but I've long been intrigued by apparent parallels in the art and archaeology of the kind we see at Sutton Hoo and felt that some level of at least elite movement was quite likely. 

“We can now reject the Danish Isles and Sweden as a source area for the Anglo-Saxons in Britain” is an important statement on that score, although it wouldn't completely rule out the Wuffingas of Sutton Hoo, for example, or other elite individuals in eastern England having come from Sweden. So I for one will be very interested in how the final published paper deals with the East Scandinavian component in Migration Period England.

I guess this is total at topic, as it goes in depth of the paper text Jonik!

What I don't get is this "reject the Danish Isles and Sweden as a source area for the Anglo-Saxons in Britain”

At least the Danish Isles part is pretty wel reflected in even modern North Dutch, correct me If I see this wrong.

[Orentil]

Would be interesting to get comments from Gretzinger about their findings. But maybe MPI was inofficially already aware and choose the term Continental Northern Europeans (CNE) by purpose?

[Rodoorn]

I hope you'll forgive an off topic post regarding some of the themes just raised in this thread. It does at least bear on the credibility of the paper as a whole… As some of you know, my main historical interest is the English settlements so those sections of the paper really grabbed my attention (as well as the findings on my I-M253 haplogroup of course). 

The authors use previously published samples (they only include two English samples of their own, both from Roman Gloucestershire) and seem to have established some really important facts about the settler populations across the three traditional shorthand groupings of Angles, Saxons and Jutes. 

These passages in particular interested me (I posted them last weekend on the Anglo-Saxon aDNA thread), including one that Rodoorn quoted in his posts above. The findings they contain are in no way surprising as such for the informed archaeologist or historian but the authors apparently demonstrate these things for the first time using aDNA:

This:

“Here we find almost all samples from England fall within the Southern Scandinavian clusters, restricting the range from the Netherlands to Jutland (Extended Data Figure 7). By adding a second Iron Age Southern Scandinavian source from Mecklenburg, Northern Germany, we are able to distinguish between the two Southern Scandinavian IA sources, allowing us to restrict this range further (Extended Data Figure 7). We find Southern Scandinavian ancestry in almost all Saxons from England, Frisians from the Netherlands and Iron Age Germans to be modelled as the Northern German source.”

This:

“In Britain between 1575 and 1200 BP, we find some outliers modelled with North Jutlandic IA rather than North German IA ancestry (Extended Data Figure 8). Although bias in sampling may mean that the specific region and timing of the arrival of individuals with this profile cannot be identified, the heterogeneity present is expected due to the various homelands of the Angles, Saxons and Jutes along the Eastern North Sea coast migrating to Britain during this period. By the Viking Age, we detect Eastern Scandinavian and Western  Scandinavian ancestries across Britain and its Islands, representing Viking migrations from Sweden and Norway. Although migration from Denmark is likely during this period, the close relation between the Anglo-Saxons and the Danish Vikings limits our ability to detect this migration.”

And this:

“In contrast to previous studies, which relied on Scandinavian samples postdating the Migration Period, we can now reject the Danish Isles and Sweden as a source area for the Anglo-Saxons in Britain, as these were dominated by Eastern Scandinavian ancestry prior to the Viking Age (Figure 6).”

They couldn't have worded things more plainly so I'd be very interested if it turns out they've got the thrust of it wrong. I must admit I'm really struggling with the colourised system in this paper, partly due to the sheer number of samples and population groups involved. I also note an unusually high number of typos, even for a preprint, which doesn't instill confidence, including that glaringly overlooked reminder to “(check)” a statement.

As I just said, key findings for AS England outlined in the passages above by no means came as a surprise: that Southern Scandinavian ancestry was a key component in the Anglo-Saxon settlers while East Scandinavian ancestry was lacking. 

I've never suspected significant involvement by immigrants from Sweden but I've long been intrigued by apparent parallels in the art and archaeology of the kind we see at Sutton Hoo and felt that some level of at least elite movement was quite likely. 

“We can now reject the Danish Isles and Sweden as a source area for the Anglo-Saxons in Britain” is an important statement on that score, although it wouldn't completely rule out the Wuffingas of Sutton Hoo, for example, or other elite individuals in eastern England having come from Sweden. So I for one will be very interested in how the final published paper deals with the East Scandinavian component in Migration Period England.

EDIT: Changed a "the" to an "a".

And now I go a step further. I go more into the "text exegesis".

“In Britain between 1575 and 1200 BP, we find some outliers modelled with North Jutlandic IA rather than North German IA ancestry (Extended Data Figure 8). Although bias in sampling may mean that the specific region and timing of the arrival of individuals with this profile cannot be identified, the heterogeneity present is expected due to the various homelands of the Angles, Saxons and Jutes along the Eastern North Sea coast migrating to Britain during this period. By the Viking Age, we detect Eastern Scandinavian and Western  Scandinavian ancestries across Britain and its Islands, representing Viking migrations from Sweden and Norway. Although migration from Denmark is likely during this period, the close relation between the Anglo-Saxons and the Danish Vikings limits our ability to detect this migration.”

I get this because they talking about the relationship between Danish Vikings and the Anglo-Saxons. Danish Viking is the population after IA Danish Isles ancestry left the scene 400 AD> and in which the gap was filled there with an amalagam of NW Euro and NE Euro derived populations.

“In contrast to previous studies, which relied on Scandinavian samples postdating the Migration Period, we can now reject the Danish Isles and Sweden as a source area for the Anglo-Saxons in Britain, as these were dominated by Eastern Scandinavian ancestry prior to the Viking Age (Figure 6).”

Here fails the reasoning imo. The reason they state is it can't be a source area for the Anglo-Saxons because as these were dominated by Eastern Scandinavian ancestry. Sounds absurd to me, because they were mainly Eastern Scandinavia ancestry they can't be a source fro the Anglo-Saxons? Imo the occurance of Danish Isles IA in the Anglo-Saxon ancestry is more crucial.... or not?

Ok first a step back and a dive into the background

"During the Bronze Age, there are a number of admixed Norwegian and Danish Bronze Age outliers who carry local and Eastern Scandinavian ancestry. When including these admixed clusters as sources, we find the Scandinavian ancestry of Iron Age Jutlandic individuals modelled entirely as the admixed Danish Bronze Age source. In contrast, the Danish Isles and Norwegian Iron Age populations require additional East Scandinavian ancestry, suggestive of either multiple waves of migration or continuous gene flow (Figure S6.5.2.2). We used DATES 67 to date the admixture time between the Eastern Scandinavians and the Southern Scandinavians, using admixed populations from the Danish Isles Bronze Age, the Danish Isles Iron Age, and the Jutlandic Iron Age (Supplementary Note S6.7, Figure S6.7.1). Weobserved an overlap between the various target groups during the Bronze Age ( ~3750 - 3250568 BP), shortly after the first detection of Eastern Scandinavian ancestry in Scandinavia. A similar result was seen for the the admixed Western Scandinavian Bronze Age cluster (4200 -3600 BP).

We see these respective proportions of Southern and Eastern Scandinavian Bronze Age ancestry persist throughout the Iron Age (2800 – 1575 BP) in Jutland, the Danish Isles and Southern Sweden. In Jutland during the Iron Age, individuals tend to fall within the Southern Scandinavian cluster (Figure 6), and are modelled with ~55% Southern and ~45% Eastern Scandinavian BA (Figure 5). Further east, individuals fall within the Eastern Scandinavian cluster; on the Danish Isles individuals are modelled as ~20% Southern and ~80% Eastern Scandinavian BA and in Sweden most individuals are modelled as ~100% Eastern Scandinavian BA (Figure 5)."

Then we see this:
The Danish Isles ancestry that was widespread on Zealand from 2200 BP disappears from ~1600 BP. 

In my words based on the previous text, The Danish Isles ancestry- modelled as ~20% Southern and ~80% Eastern Scandinavian BA- that was widespread on Zealand from 2200 BP disappears from ~1600 BP.

Did it disappear in thin air? I don't think so. 
I already mentioned the prevalence in even modern North Dutch (talking about a long lasting impact).

But in G25 it appears in different amount along the Gretzingers samples, for example (i can add it with all the Gretzinger AS samples, imo really interesting):



Of course this is not with another "South Scandic" component or so but nevertheless.

So as they are right that there is no relationship between Anglo-Saxons and the Danish Vikings as source, because the Danish Vikings- the ones from the Isles- were a post migration time amalgam population.

But imo they must revise their statement "we can now reject the Danish Isles and Sweden as a source area for the Anglo-Saxons in Britain, as these were dominated by Eastern Scandinavian ancestry prior to the Viking Age (Figure 6)" because this doesn't correspondent with reality!

For the rest this doesn't mean that the paper has no value or is irrelevant, on the contrary!

[alanarchae]

It’s hard to phrase complex multiphase stuff like what was going on in north Germany and scandinavia and its colonies 2000BC-1000AD in words without risking misleading sentences. They could solve that by using more maps depicting each shift and migration in the final draft. And keeping the summary maps simple layman’s ones .

[Rodoorn]

It’s hard to phrase complex multiphase stuff like what was  going on in north Germany and scandinavia and its colonies 2000BC-1000AD in words without risking misleading sentences. They could solve that by using more maps depicting each shift and migration in the final draft. And keeping the summary maps simple layman’s ones .

Agree!
Nevertheless at this level a paper must contain an internal consistency that is the least for academics alanarchae!

[Russki]

Drew it for another forum

[Rodoorn]

Drew it for another forum

Would imo be a step back towards the paper!

R1b U106 Z18 has an early presence on Zealand 2194-2026 calBCE.
The NW Block has Unetice derived Z304/ Z381. Presence since BA.

It's clear that Germanic is primarly Scandic, with a great touch of East-Scandic. Jastorf is imo the southern zone of NBA. With the Elbe-Havel group (aka Suebi) as the most southern Germanic tribe.

The definite Germanization of the NW Block (especially the Western part) is after 400 AD, with the influx of the Germanics with at that moment the core on Zealand, central place Gudme.

[Anglesqueville]

I am still trying to find in this completely labyrinthine text a numerical justification for the assertion (vital for their thesis) of a trans-Baltic migration which would result in the East-Scandinavian cluster. I only find diagrams, which need to be looked at with a magnifying glass, and I regret Allentoft's spreadsheets. Okay, so I tried to see what admixtools would say, without much hope because IBDs statistics are not necessarily reflected in allelic statistics.
I only looked at the pre-2800 Swedish individuals which are in my usual working file: oll009 and oll10 on the one hand (Sweden_LateNeolithic.ial.mc), and on the other hand part of the Falköping group (Sweden_N_Falköping.imputed_Allentoft_mc). The choice of sources can be discussed, as always, but the main thing for me was to see how the targets behave with respect to Latvia_HG, which I therefore supplemented with a Ukrainian Yamnaya (unimputed, around 600,000 SNPs ), and the few Polish LBKs who are in Allentoft.
right pops:
Russia_Ust_Ishim.DG
Cameroon_SMA.DG
Italy_North_Villabruna_HG
Czech_Vestonice16
Belgium_UP_GoyetQ116_1
Russia_MA1_HG.SG
Iran_GanjDareh_N
Russia_Kostenki14.SG
Indian_GreatAndaman_100BP.SG
Israel_PPNB
Georgia_Kotias.SG
Sidelkino.ial
Yana.ial
Turkey_N_I0707


left pops:
Sweden_N_Falköping.imputed_Allentoft_mc
Ukraine_Yamnaya
POL_LBK_Late_N
Latvia_HG.ial


best coefficients:    0.450    0.374    0.176
totmean:      0.450    0.374    0.176
boot mean:    0.451    0.373    0.176
      std. errors:    0.037    0.030    0.020


  fixed pat  wt  dof    chisq      tail prob
          000  0    11    14.243        0.219857    0.450    0.374    0.176
   
   
left pops:
Sweden_LateNeolithic.ial.mc
Ukraine_Yamnaya
POL_LBK_Late_N
Latvia_HG.ial

best coefficients:    0.393    0.417    0.190
totmean:      0.393    0.417    0.190
boot mean:    0.393    0.417    0.190
      std. errors:    0.045    0.036    0.025


  fixed pat  wt  dof    chisq      tail prob
          000  0    11    12.316        0.340341    0.393    0.417    0.190
       

For comparison, the same with the Battle Axes:

best coefficients:    0.641    0.266    0.094
totmean:      0.641    0.266    0.094
boot mean:    0.642    0.265    0.093
      std. errors:    0.045    0.037    0.025


fixed pat  wt  dof    chisq      tail prob
          000  0    11    14.442        0.209516    0.641    0.266    0.094

[Russki]

Rodoorn,

>R1b U106 Z18 has an early presence on Zealand 2194-2026 calBCE.
>The NW Block has Unetice derived Z304/ Z381. Presence since BA.

R1b-U106 is quite rare among modern Irish, in particular Western Irish, although they have some English influence, it is also somewhat rare among Highland Scots and Welsh, from this I deduce that the Dutch Bell Beakers who replaced Neolithic British didn't carry R1b-U106 or it was quite rare among them. The influx of R1b-U106 into the area of Dutch Bell Beakers seemingly started after this event (replacement of Neolithic British) was finished, from Unetice or from later Jastorf people, probably from both.

>It's clear that Germanic is primarly Scandic, with a great touch of East-Scandic. Jastorf is imo the southern zone of NBA. With the Elbe-Havel group (aka Suebi) as the most southern Germanic tribe.
>The definite Germanization of the NW Block (especially the Western part) is after 400 AD, with the influx of the Germanics with at that moment the core on Zealand, central place Gudme.

The area of modern Denmark and Skåne was a periphery between the Nordic culture which was rich in R1a-Z284 and the Jastorf culture where it was more or less absent. Roman and pre-Roman Zealand samples have a significant frequency of R1a-Z284. I kind of doubt that it was the starting point of Germanic expansion because in this case they would have to go down South to the mainland Europe and spread R1a-Z284 in a genetically very Germanic places like Lower Saxony, but R1a-Z284 seems more or less absent there. Y-DNA evidence points to the one-road nature of migration with R1b-U106 expanding from South to North, but R1a-Z284 not spilling over from North to South. I1 was seemingly present in both Jastorf and Nordic cultures and doesn't provide much information about the direction of migration.

How is it clear that Germanic is primarily Scandic if one of the most frequent Y-DNA types of Scandinavians did not spillover to highly Germanic (autosomally) people like NW Germans?
It does demonstrate that the Germanic people are autochtonous to the North German plain, and from there they expanded Northwards.