Ancient I1 samples list and discussion

[JonikW]

It's annoyingly unclear, I agree. The Introduction suggests to me that they're defining Scandinavia (beyond Denmark, which they unsurprisingly class as “southern Scandinavia”) in the strictest sense of the term, meaning the Scandinavian peninsula, excluding all parts of Finland. The relevant wording is: “The early postglacial human 91 colonisation of the Scandinavian Peninsula (Sweden and Norway)…” 

I can't see any other attempt at a definition in the paper that might go beyond the peninsula although they also refer to “the Baltic islands east of the Swedish mainland”, which I assume they include in their “Scandinavia” definition given that they're part of one of the cited countries. 

Look forward to hearing what Kaltmeister comes back with. Surely the number-one rule in a thorough paper is that you start by defining the geographical designations that you apply.

[Anglesqueville]

FYI the link to data files, that was inactive yesterday, seems to be now active: https://doi.org/10.17894/ucph.d71a6a5a-8...afdfe81455 (one .vcf per chromosome).

[SeriesOfExtraordinaryEvents]

Original paper had picture where the emerging I1 guys were clearly distinct from previous inhabitants. This one does not have it. My initial thought back then was drift, perhaps it was admixture after all. Also did the original have genetic group called EuropeNE_4800BP_3000BP ?

[SeriesOfExtraordinaryEvents]

This is what I had in mind. Note, this picture is montage made by me. It's still in context, I just made it clear for (now closed) PGMC linguistic thread. I used material from the original study, perhaps it was in the supplementary. I first thought the I1 guys would be just very drifted continuity from older 4200BP population but now they are saying this is new population with different roots ?

[MrI1]

Very interesting! So isotope data suggests I1 possibly coming from Eastern/Northeastern Sweden despite zero ancient dna examples from those regions.

[SeriesOfExtraordinaryEvents]

4.2 kya event. Just saying.

There are 10.000 islands between Stockholm and Turku. Plenty of space, perfect survival area against arification event.

[MrI1]

Sounds great for an I-DF29/I-Z2893 subclade originating in Sweden, but Mr. I1’s closest patrilineal relative Mr. I-Z17954 has a much more western / Denmark/Northern Germany phylogenetic modern distribution. How do we reconcile that with islands from the East? Additionally, from an ancient dna record our closest cousin branch was from Schwerin, Germany with Mr. OST003.

[JonikW]

Sounds great for an I-DF29/I-Z2893 subclade originating in Sweden, but Mr. I1’s closest patrilineal relative Mr. I-Z17954 has a much more western / Denmark/Northern Germany phylogenetic modern distribution. How do we reconcile that with islands from the East? Additionally, from an ancient dna record our closest cousin branch was from Schwerin, Germany with Mr. OST003.

Good point about I-Z17954 given the founder's early date. But wasn't his just one of those prolific contemporary lineages of the kind that anyone with one of the main European haplogroups knows, which in this case happened to move a bit further south? There's still a good Z17954 representation in Sweden and I don't see why not, especially given that this was a time of an “increase in human mobility” according to the paper. 

As for OST003 I'm wary of inferring too much from this cousin branch. His ancestors' movements could have been north to south for all we know, and given his genetic distance I suspect he doesn't have anything meaningful to tell us about modern I1 in any case pending further evidence.

[MrI1]

I agree with you JonikW that Mr. OST003 diverging apart from Mr. I1’s patrilineal line most likely at least a millennia or more prior to the tmrca of Mr. I1 is not a sufficient enough indicator for determining the origins of Mr. I1. In regards to Mr. I-Z17954 though and his patrilineal descendants I’m surprised that there were multiple immediate branches being proficient in Germany if its origins were many centuries prior to the northeast? I’d love some ancient dna for I-Z17954 from the LNBA but considering it’s such a small branch I’m not confident it will ever pop up.

[Orentil]

It's annoyingly unclear, I agree. The Introduction suggests to me that they're defining Scandinavia (beyond Denmark, which they unsurprisingly class as “southern Scandinavia”) in the strictest sense of the term, meaning the Scandinavian peninsula, excluding all parts of Finland. The relevant wording is: “The early postglacial human 91 colonisation of the Scandinavian Peninsula (Sweden and Norway)…” 

I can't see any other attempt at a definition in the paper that might go beyond the peninsula although they also refer to “the Baltic islands east of the Swedish mainland”, which I assume they include in their “Scandinavia” definition given that they're part of one of the cited countries. 

Look forward to hearing what Kaltmeister comes back with. Surely the number-one rule in a thorough paper is that you start by defining the geographical designations that you apply.

I checked some other publications from Scandinavian authors and found e.g. in the paper "Population genomics of Mesolithic Scandinavia" the equation: "People from eastern Scandinavia - present-day Sweden - were more genetically similar to populations from central and western Europe." So, I now assume that really simply Sweden is meant also here.

[Strider99]

So, what does 'eastern Scandinavia' mean, Finland?

It's certainly a cryptic statement by Allentoft. I hope it gets elaborated on once the study gets published, even if it's just in the supplementary information.

I agree with Kaltmeister that what one might consider "northeastern" or northern Scandinavia isn't always set in stone. Here, at least, it all depends on where in Scandinavia you're from. Someone from Denmark or Scania will consider Jämtland as northern Scandinavia, whereas they might also consider Svealand to be eastern Scandinavia (which I suppose it technically is). Anything between Ångermanland, Västerbotten and Norrbotten could easily be called northeastern Scandinavia, in my view. Then again, it all depends, and it's difficult to tell which region exactly the study has in mind. There is also the geographic concept of Fennoscandia which (in the view of most people, I imagine) is not defined in the same way as Scandinavia. I personally doubt that Finland is what the study is referring to in this case, but I'd love to be proven wrong. 

As for what we could expect to see genetically in Northern Scandinavia during the same time that DF29 was rising to prominence in Southern Scandinavia during the LN, we have only gotten a quick glimpse of it in the form of VK531 from Troms in Norway, published in Margaryan 2020. As most of you will know, he had a fully Mesolithic, SHG-like autosomal profile and carried the EHG-derived Y-DNA haplogroup R1b-Y13202. He was dated to around 2400 BC. Going a little further south, there is the Battle Axe culture sample Olsund from Ölsund in Hälsingland, which can definitely be considered eastern Scandinavia. R1a-M417, so no surprise there. Dated to 2573–2140 cal BCE.

From Middle Neolithic southeastern Scandinavia we have plenty of samples. The many Pitted Ware and Funnelbeaker samples from Gotland and Öland all carried I2. Then there's the Battle Axe sample from Bergsgraven in Östergötland, with the same paternal lineage as the Battle Axe man from Hälsingland. With all this in mind, I really wonder where specifically they are suggesting that the 4000-3000 BP cluster originated. Svealand? Lappland? Further east? This has really sparked my curiosity. I guess it wouldn't be entirely unreasonable to assume that they're aware of samples that we have no clue about, perhaps that is why they feel confident in making such a claim?

We know and have known for quite some time that there are new samples from East-Central Sweden (Malmström lab) and from Norway in the pipeline. I guess we'll just have to wait for those and see what they tell us before we can tell whether Allentoft's phrasing is based on hard data or bold speculation.

[SeriesOfExtraordinaryEvents]

Island-land

[JonikW]

I agree with you JonikW that Mr. OST003 diverging apart from Mr. I1’s patrilineal line most likely at least a millennia or more prior to the tmrca of Mr. I1 is not a sufficient enough indicator for determining the origins of Mr. I1. In regards to Mr. I-Z17954 though and his patrilineal descendants I’m surprised that there were multiple immediate branches being proficient in Germany if its origins were many centuries prior to the northeast? I’d love some ancient dna for I-Z17954 from the LNBA but considering it’s such a small branch I’m not confident it will ever pop up.

You know a lot more about I-Z17954 than I do, MrI1, so I'd be keen to hear any observations about individual branches. Just looking at YFull I can see a few things of interest, working my way from the top of the tree down.

Under I-Y19092 (formed 4600 ybp/TMRCA 3300 ybp) we have a France Seine Maritime (so Viking/Norman quite possibly), two from Finland and a Dutch tester from Utrecht.

Then we have the separate branch of I-FGC47136 (4,600 ybp), which arose in a man who is the founder of many lineages. Under a couple of branches there are an English tester and a couple of Russian Tatar testers (Viking origin I suppose).

Also below I-FGC47136 there is I-Z17943 (4,600/4,300). Here there are a couple of German Saxons and a couple of Pomorskie Poles. We could be looking at all kinds of movements from IA southern Scandinavia for the first two, while for the Poles I assume Vandals, Goths and Vikings are among the most likely ones.

For I-S2315 (4,300) I can only see a couple of flags on the I-Z17928 branch (4,300/3,900), Ukraine and Denmark, so the same potential origins as for I-Z17943 testers. I-Z17928a (3,900) is an interesting branch of I-S2315, including England, the Netherlands, France (Loire and Vendée) and Germany at various levels. Could this point to an early German location for I-Z17954 of a kind we were discussing? Maybe but given what we've seen in the markers above before I turned to this branch, I doubt it. All of the I-Z17928a continental branches can equally plausibly be explained by IA southern Scandinavian movements into areas including various parts of Gaul of the kind documented by Caesar as well as Migration Period movements (there was considerable movement south as well as to Britain, as we know).

Next up, we go back to I-FGC47136 and its branch of I-K541 (4,600). This is another early branch, so worth taking a close look at for clues on where the whole tree originated. Here we have a Swiss tester out on his own and then the I-Z131 branch (4,600/4,200). Here we have a Swedish tester from the far north of the country in Norrbottens län. There's also a lowlands Scot, a Cambridgeshire man and one from Leicestershire. The Brits, I assume, are descendants of Danes or Angles*.

Then we have I-FT7306 (4,200/4,100). Here we have four Swedes who share a TMRCA of 1,800 ybp although three also share a TMRCA of 475 ybp. I-CTS6397 also comes out of I-FT7306 (4,100 ybp). This branch has many Virginians who descend from someone successful in that state who lived about 400 years ago. I assume he was a well known historical figure and that's why they've tested. But the bit of relevance for us is the European testers who, like the Virginians, are under I-Y2698 (4,100/1,500) Here we see unspecified France, York and Łódź, with the latter two again suggesting Scandinavia was the home of their shared Migration Period marker.

So all in all I don't see anything that demonstrates I-Z17954 didn't arise somewhere in Scandinavia. Only I-Z17928a looked like it could arguably point to a German location for I-Z17954. But at the same time there's also a case to say it's Scandinavian, while we should also bear in mind that it’s hundreds of years later than some I-Z17954 markers such as I-FT7306, including its Swedish testers.

If I had more time I would take some of the branches I mentioned above and see what FTDNA tells us about modern distribution of the important ones. *I once scoured FTDNA as well as YFull to look at Z131>A13821> A13819> A13823 and help out a fellow AG member (I remember coming to the conclusion that his own line was probably more likely to have been Angle than Danish.) But I don't have time for the work involved in examining a large branch today so any further thoughts from MrI1 and others much appreciated. I apologise in advance if I made any errors in SNP names and dates above. Unlike my usual practice, I didn't go back to check everything I'd written against YFull.

[MrI1]

The latest findings have inspired me to do a deeper dive into I-Z17954 which I will try to get to over the next few days. Below is general overview of I-Z17954 video I made in the past.

https://youtu.be/QLNP9Nt0FKU?si=P5Xc3yM8StTLip8O

[JonikW]

The latest findings have inspired me to do a deeper dive into I-Z17954 which I will try to get to over the next few days. Below is general overview of I-Z17954 video I made in the past.

https://youtu.be/QLNP9Nt0FKU?si=P5Xc3yM8StTLip8O

I just watched your video, MrI1, and think you’ve absolutely nailed the importance of I-Z17954. I've also got to say right at the beginning here that I love your Mr I1 sweatshirt. All of us GA I-M253 aficionados should sport one.

Obviously I can't say whether you're right or wrong with your northern Germany theory. Working out where someone lived 4,500 years ago based only on the locations of less than 180 randomly sourced modern descendants is always going to be a tricky task. It might be difficult even if he'd lived in the IA.

I suppose the main issue for me is the smallish size of the branches when it comes to this kind of very ancient analysis and the difficulty of knowing when the ancestors of these testers arrived in their recent locations, including most pertinently those now in Germany.

The fact England is so well represented suggests that by the Roman IA there was a significant distribution of I-Z17954 men in areas that became largely depopulated in the Migration Period. We know this depopulation applied in the Anglian area and wider parts of Denmark. I think it's particularly interesting, as you say, that we had the Danish Magaryan VK275 I-Z17954 sample despite only one known modern tester in that country today.

I also think the upheaval in the western Germanic Early Medieval world can muddy the waters a lot if we're trying to peer back 4,500 years in that specific region. If we put that aside for a minute and look further north and east instead, I'm not convinced we know that the ancestors of the 10 Swedish I-Z17954 testers weren't in Sweden back at a very early point. I also don't think we can overlook the Tatar testers, given their likely Swedish Viking derivation, and also the two testers from Finland.

I myself am agnostic on the location of the ultimate source of I-Z17954, Mr I1 himself. From the aDNA evidence to date it looks like the haplogroup gradually moved down from some unknown location in Scandinavia from the BA onwards, only reaching areas such as the Netherlands in any real numbers in the IA or even later. I think this is an important factor for I1 as a whole in Germany itself. I simply don't see how Mr I1 can have lived close to Germany given the aDNA to date.

It's safe to say that only a few hundred additional I-Z17954 testers from right across the continent, Scandinavia and Finland can help us say more, as well as a number of ancient samples. That's something I think we all agree on here. :-)

ADDED one line to make a point I was trying to make clearer.