Hello guest, if you read this it means you are not registered. Click here to register in a few simple steps, you will enjoy all features of our Forum.

Check for new replies
The Origin of R1b-L21
(07-05-2024, 09:53 PM)jorgensenaleksander Wrote:
(07-02-2024, 09:43 PM)jorgensenaleksander Wrote: Found it here by Ambiorix. I’m trying to piece together a possible Hilversum origin for FTB54744, as it seems likely. And i remembered someone had mentioned this before!

Did i mention that I5508 had relatives with him to Yorskshire. 

Sample I14105 is a second or third degree relative of I13751 and I5508, who is a second or third degree relative of I14108.  Supplementary Information.

Could promote a heavier presence in the isles when knowing there were more of them. however i don’t think they shared the same paternal line. Atleast i’m not able to find such information.

Found the Y-DNA and mtDNA for the aforementioned samples via the Anthrogenica archive at Genoplot (I5508 has mtDNA haplogroup J1c9):

Quote:I13751 – Y-DNA: N/A (female) | mtDNA: H2a3b
I14105 – Y-DNA: R-DF27 > BY11969 (called for P312 by FTDNA) | mtDNA: H2a3b
I14108 – Y-DNA: N/A (female) | mtDNA: V2a

Judging from the haplogroups, I13751 and I14105 possibly relate to one-another via shared direct maternal ancestors (same maternal grandmother?), whereas I13751 and I14105 both relate to I5508 via other sides of I5508’s family (paternal grandmother or maternal grandfather?) if the DF27 > BY11969 call is to be trusted; I5508 and I14108 would be related to one-another outside of the direct maternal line. Concerning I14105, it is notable that R-BY11969 contains British Isles representation in Wales and England, with downstream clade FT81726 splitting from a MBA-LBA TMRCA at Z29954 (1582 BC); curiously, I14105 appears to also be the most southern-shifted among his relatives, possessing WHG comparable to that of I14108 (~16.5%) while only having 43.2% Yamnaya_RUS_Samara. This does make me wonder about Atlantic Bronze Age movements extending into the Mediterranean and causing the Sardinian representation, but such Sardinian kits are also likely to be connected to immigration from southern France during the Nuragic civilisation; the fact it just passes the Bonnanaro A2 phase might be resolved if the TMRCA gets pushed back for Z29954, or could perhaps be connected to later movements out of France and Spain and into Sardinia (LBA-IA?). The Y21243 block under R-PF7589 might be relevant in this context, due to close TMRCAs and similar bifurcation between British and Sardinian kits (in the case of the aforementioned Sardinian kit, sharing a LBA TMRCA with an Italian tester, potentially with ancestry from Apulia?), which could also point to a common Central European source or (more likely imo) a pincer movement of DF27 > BY11969 from the (north)west and PF7589 > Y21243 from the (north)east.

Out of curiosity, I combed through McColl et al. (2024), specifically looking at how they are modelled with Sets 7 and 8 using IA samples; I13751 and I14108 both have a little bit of ENS ancestry (and an even smaller trace of East Scandinavian and Baltic/South Scandinavian, respectively), but otherwise they all look to be locals. In any case, I14015 and I5508 are not close paternal relatives to one-another if going by the calls other people found for BY11969, so they are unfortunately uninformative RE: L21 > BY11863 - however, I do still think a Hilversum association for BY11863 makes sense for the time being!
Fredduccine, JonikW, jorgensenaleksander like this post
Y-Line (P): Sint-Maria-Horebeke, Oost-Vlaanderen, Belgium (c. 1660)
mtDNA: Aberdeen, Aberdeenshire, Scotland
Y-Line (M): Eggleston, County Durham, England (c. 1600)
Genealogy: France (Nord, Pas-de-Calais, Picardy, Normandy), Belgium - Flanders (Oost-Vlaanderen, West-Vlaanderen), Belgium - Wallonia (Hainaut, Namur), England (SW, NE), Scotland (Aberdeenshire, Galloway), Netherlands (Zeeland, Friesland), Jersey
Anthrogenica Join Date: 10-09-2022

Reply
(07-06-2024, 12:49 AM)Ambiorix Wrote:
(07-05-2024, 09:53 PM)jorgensenaleksander Wrote:
(07-02-2024, 09:43 PM)jorgensenaleksander Wrote: Found it here by Ambiorix. I’m trying to piece together a possible Hilversum origin for FTB54744, as it seems likely. And i remembered someone had mentioned this before!

Did i mention that I5508 had relatives with him to Yorskshire. 

Sample I14105 is a second or third degree relative of I13751 and I5508, who is a second or third degree relative of I14108.  Supplementary Information.

Could promote a heavier presence in the isles when knowing there were more of them. however i don’t think they shared the same paternal line. Atleast i’m not able to find such information.

Found the Y-DNA and mtDNA for the aforementioned samples via the Anthrogenica archive at Genoplot (I5508 has mtDNA haplogroup J1c9):

Quote:I13751 – Y-DNA: N/A (female) | mtDNA: H2a3b
I14105 – Y-DNA: R-DF27 > BY11969 (called for P312 by FTDNA) | mtDNA: H2a3b
I14108 – Y-DNA: N/A (female) | mtDNA: V2a

Judging from the haplogroups, I13751 and I14105 possibly relate to one-another via shared direct maternal ancestors (same maternal grandmother?), whereas I13751 and I14105 both relate to I5508 via other sides of I5508’s family (paternal grandmother or maternal grandfather?) if the DF27 > BY11969 call is to be trusted; I5508 and I14108 would be related to one-another outside of the direct maternal line. Concerning I14105, it is notable that R-BY11969 contains British Isles representation in Wales and England, with downstream clade FT81726 splitting from a MBA-LBA TMRCA at Z29954 (1582 BC); curiously, I14105 appears to also be the most southern-shifted among his relatives, possessing WHG comparable to that of I14108 (~16.5%) while only having 43.2% Yamnaya_RUS_Samara. This does make me wonder about Atlantic Bronze Age movements extending into the Mediterranean and causing the Sardinian representation, but such Sardinian kits are also likely to be connected to immigration from southern France during the Nuragic civilisation; the fact it just passes the Bonnanaro A2 phase might be resolved if the TMRCA gets pushed back for Z29954, or could perhaps be connected to later movements out of France and Spain and into Sardinia (LBA-IA?). The Y21243 block under R-PF7589 might be relevant in this context, due to close TMRCAs and similar bifurcation between British and Sardinian kits (in the case of the aforementioned Sardinian kit, sharing a LBA TMRCA with an Italian tester, potentially with ancestry from Apulia?), which could also point to a common Central European source or (more likely imo) a pincer movement of DF27 > BY11969 from the (north)west and PF7589 > Y21243 from the (north)east.

Out of curiosity, I combed through McColl et al. (2024), specifically looking at how they are modelled with Sets 7 and 8 using IA samples; I13751 and I14108 both have a little bit of ENS ancestry (and an even smaller trace of East Scandinavian and Baltic/South Scandinavian, respectively), but otherwise they all look to be locals. In any case, I14015 and I5508 are not close paternal relatives to one-another if going by the calls other people found for BY11969, so they are unfortunately uninformative RE: L21 > BY11863 - however, I do still think a Hilversum association for BY11863 makes sense for the time being!

I’ve been looking for papers on the hilversum culture (archeological). However it seems scarce, are we still at the stage of Noordwestblock being a hypothesis?
Ambiorix and Fredduccine like this post
Reply
(07-06-2024, 10:02 AM)jorgensenaleksander Wrote: I’ve been looking for papers on the hilversum culture (archeological). However it seems scarce, are we still at the stage of Noordwestblock being a hypothesis?

The Nordwestblock concept is rather overstated, at least insofar as it assumes a certain unity between the constituent cultures (Elp, Hoogkarspel, and Hilversum) within its distribution area – back on Anthrogenica, I wrote on the “Nordwestblock” and argued that Hilversum lacks essential commonalities with Elp and Hoogkarspel, both of which were in several regards much more conservative and archaic cultures (e.g., maintaining the old funerary rite of interring the dead in tumuli, the usage of undecorated and simple “ Kümmerkeramik”, etc.) compared to Hilversum (early cremators with far-reaching ideological and material ties to inland and Atlantic groups - note also the term "Drakenstein pottery" is synonymous with Hilversum). I am especially doubtful that Hilversum and Elp would have necessarily spoken the same language (a core component of the "Nordwestblock" term) due to these key sociocultural differences, and rather see Elp as being part of a Pre-/Para-Germanic dialect continuum established in the Bronze Age, with elites presumably being fluent in multiple dialects/languages (perhaps a common higher register in the context of legitimising certain trade relations) due to their somewhat paternalistic control over trade (from memory, Harry Fokkens has argued that the transition to the Iron Age marked a widespread revolt against the old social order in the former Elp area, resulting in a greater degree of autonomy for the sons of such leaders and the establishment of more egalitarian social structures).

Some key quotes:
Quote:“Lanting and Mook introduced a division of the Middle Bronze Age into two phases, an A and a B phase. This division was predominantly made on the basis of the burial data. The Middle Bronze Age A begins with the occurrence of barrows with circular ditches around them. In the south and central Netherlands Hilversum or Drakenstein pottery is present in the graves. In the north a number of graves contain bronzes of the Sogel-Wohlde complex, but typical pottery is absent from the definition. Houses were absent in the list of cultural phenomena of phase Middle Bronze Age A, although the Dodewaard and Zijderveld houses were already known. The early date of the Dodewaard house (c. 1728-1628) was dismissed by Lanting & Mook as probably contaminated, though it is not stated why they thought that (Lanting & Mook, 1977: p. 121).

Phase B begins with the occurrence of post-circles around barrows. At the settlement level, houses are recognised in all regions of the Netherlands. These houses are predominantly three-aisled, but Lanting's careful formulation 'mainly 3-aisled houses' allows for the round 'houses' that had been recognised in the south. In the north and east, settlement pits contain Kümmerkeramik and in the south and central Netherlands Drakenstein-Laren pottery. For West-Friesland a separate pottery group was recognised (Bakker et al., 1977), Hoogkarspel pottery, that had much affinity with the north and east, but also developed its own regional characteristics” (Fokkens 2001, p. 243, https://hdl.handle.net/1887/19822).

Quote:In the two southern Dutch and Belgian regions, local production is particularly known from the Middle and Late Bronze Age. In particular, regionally produced axes lack an outspoken regional style. Rather, they seem to lend or even copy elements that are characteristic for both Continental and Atlantic traditions (Fontijn 2002, 165). The mould from Oss-Horzak even shows that distinctive styles thought to be characteristic for mid-German regions like wheel-headed pins, seems to have been rather straightforwardly copied in the southern Netherlands (Fontijn 2002, 138–141). As a whole, regional styles in these regions may be characterised as ‘open’ rather than ‘closed’. Especially regional palstaves can have similarities to products from France (especially with those of the Normand type; Butler and Steegstra 1997/1998, 245)…

The north-eastern Netherlands seem to have been more linked with north German and Nordic traditions. Butler’s recent study of socketed axes in this region illustrates that these do have distinctive decorations that are typical for the region only (Butler and Steegstra 2003/2004). Also, they show remarkable variation in form and decoration among themselves. This is in marked contrast to what is found in the southern regions, and especially native crafting traditions from the Late Bronze Age north seem to have been much more ‘closed’ tradition than those in the south. Sørensen (1987, 99) has argued that such ‘closed’ styles prevail in Late Bronze Age-Early Iron Age southern Scandinavia as well” (Fontijn 2009, pp. 137-138, https://www.academia.edu/1242969/Land_at..._Countries).

Quote:“Realising that British metalwork circulated in Northwest French networks as well, it might be ventured that the small amount of British imports known reached the southern Netherlands together with French metalwork. It is at any rate conspicuous that certain French and British objects not only share stylistic traits, but are also repeatedly found associated in depositions. Does this imply that British/Irish objects were seen as one variety of material which was seen as coming from the far south? A similar situation can be found in the adjacent west Belgian region… British/Irish metal in that case could have come from the French channel zone by sea, avoiding the much longer and more dangerous crossing of the North Sea from England to the Belgian coast. At any rate, in both scenarios, British material would also reach the area ‘from the south’ instead of from across the sea, and likewise the origins of ‘British/Irish’ may also have been located there (Fig 9.7)” (Ibid., p. 142).

If there is sufficient interest, I can reupload my old post RE: the Nordwestblock (with some amendments here and there)! Suffice it to say that I find it likely that DF27 and L21 subclades were quite active in the Hilversum culture, with a combination of DF27 and L21 middlemen taking protracted voyages from northern France into the southern-central Netherlands. An R-PF7589+ sample from the Hoogkarspel culture I have previously written on is important as well, attesting to the vast networks which were established in Bronze Age Europe that allowed ideas, goods, and people to move great distances (this PF7589+ man presumably having distant roots in Carpathian and Danubian groups). @RBHeadge argued rather convincingly that BY38964, a subclade of PF7589, could represent a clade which flourished within the Hilversum culture, in which case comparison with BY38964 might act as a good litmus test for how Y-DNA from the Hilversum culture might be distributed and diversify today (i.e., with presence along the Rhine and in the Low Countries more broadly from the 1800s BC onward, with periods of bottlenecking from the Bronze Age leading to founder effects from the Middle-Late Iron Age into the Middle Ages). Notably, BY38964 seems to have some secondary rebounding in quite distant regions relative to its assumed point of origin/diversification, e.g., in Galicia (R-FTA36827 – Celtiberians?) and Russia (R-FTB36397 - Varangians?), which I take to suggest that the last vestiges of the Hilversum folks were partitioned among various neighbouring groups, resulting in far-flung outliers while retaining early diversity in and near their core area. Early presence of L21 in NW Germany would make association of some subclades with Hilversum somewhat doubtful in my mind, since such L21 subclades would rather exist in association with U106 and DF19 (although the early E1b sample from Denmark does suggest introgression into ENS groups, who then secondarily passed such Y-DNA back into Scandinavia throughout the Iron Age) - regardless, I would not be surprised if Hilversum-related L21 clades skewed more toward Britain and Belgium compared to other Hilversum-related Y-DNA. Keeping these points in mind, the following L21 subclades are potentially of interest:

Quote:R-Z16944
R-CTS6919
R-FTE96103
R-BY28644
R-FTB54744
R-Z2534* (YFull – French Flemish kit)
R-FGC37558 (note Spanish kit at FGC37558* + downstream Hungarian/German (?) kit at FTB9456 with Early Medieval TMRCA)
R-FGC11986

You might find better luck looking through the "Scholarly Publications" section on the Leiden University site RE: the Dutch Bronze Age - Arnoldussen, S. (2014), “If only Hilversum could have been a coastal town… The atypical type-site for a typical Dutch Bronze Age ceramic tradition” (https://www.researchgate.net/publication...t_voor_het), the previously cited Fokkens, H. (2001), “The periodisation of the Dutch Bronze Age: a critical review” (https://hdl.handle.net/1887/19822), and Fokkens (2005), “Le début de l'Âge du Bronze aux Pays-Bas et l'horizon de Hilversum Ancien” (https://hdl.handle.net/1887/19827) are all valuable texts worth looking through! I will be doing more research in my spare time, especially trying to parse out Elp culture-related lineages vs Hilversum Wink
jorgensenaleksander, Manofthehour, JonikW And 1 others like this post
Y-Line (P): Sint-Maria-Horebeke, Oost-Vlaanderen, Belgium (c. 1660)
mtDNA: Aberdeen, Aberdeenshire, Scotland
Y-Line (M): Eggleston, County Durham, England (c. 1600)
Genealogy: France (Nord, Pas-de-Calais, Picardy, Normandy), Belgium - Flanders (Oost-Vlaanderen, West-Vlaanderen), Belgium - Wallonia (Hainaut, Namur), England (SW, NE), Scotland (Aberdeenshire, Galloway), Netherlands (Zeeland, Friesland), Jersey
Anthrogenica Join Date: 10-09-2022

Reply
Got my latest updates in today I’m now at R-FTB46371. Haplogroup origin 1600 CE. This branched of a line from Luster in Norway that originated 110 BCE. Before this we seperated with the Guthrie surname at 1750 BCE, R-FTB54744. However it’s not known where the branching happend.
Fredduccine, Dewsloth, Gortaleen And 3 others like this post
Reply

Check for new replies

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)