Peterski
03-04-2018, 08:20 PM
In the final version of Olalde's Bell Beaker paper there is a sample of R1b-U106 from Unetice culture in Czech Republic:
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25738
I7196, Czech Republic, Jinonice, Unetice culture, 2200-1700 BC, R1b-U106
It is a rather advanced stage of demographic development of U106, because this individual is positive for many downstream SNPs (according to Ian McDonland he is U106 > Z2265 > BY30097 > Z381 > Z156 > Z305/Z306/Z307/Z8191 > Z304 > DF98 > S1911 > S1894/S1900).
Two other early known samples of U106 are from southern Sweden (RISE98) and the Netherlands (I4070):
http://i.imgur.com/pg2bEQX.png
Ian McDonald currently thinks that U106 did not originate from Bell Beaker culture, but from Corded Ware:
Our new U106 ancient burial from Prague has now been further refined to:
U106 > Z2265 > BY30097 > Z381 > Z156 > Z306 > Z304 > DF98 > S1911 > S1894
Being S1894+ myself, this obviously makes me very happy. I've been very lucky to have two out of the five early U106+ burials be R-S1894. However, it also raise some interesting possibilities for everyone else. I should point out that the S1911 and S1894 assignments are made from single reads, but that's normally ok providing one is not searching for novel variants and provided the read quality is ok.
These are still very early days for understanding this burial and the context in which he was found. Perhaps the most important factor here is the date of the burial. Carbon dating hasn't (as far as I can work out) been performed. Contextually, the site has been given a date of between 2200 BC and 1700 BC in the Olalde publication, and we have to assume from the R-S1894 haplogroup that the burial lies towards the end of this period.
This is interesting in the context of the age and spread of the older U106 branches. This burial closest U106 individual to an existing lineage that we know of: the Swedish (RISE98), Dutch (Olalde) and York (Roman) burials are all many centuries more recent than their most-recent known haplogroups, and don't give us great constraints on the ages of haplogroups. I had dated S1894 to between 2545 BC and 1231 BC, with a best guess of 1866 BC. Clearly, if this burial is S1894+, the real date must be in the earlier part of this timeframe. This pushes back the most likely dates of all the haplogroups around it. The following are guideline ages for the youngest each clade is likely to be (i.e. we can be 95% confident the true ages are older than these dates):
R-S1894: before 1740 BC
R-S1911: before 1800 BC
R-DF98: before 1875 BC
R-Z304: before 1895 BC
R-Z306: before 1950 BC
R-Z156: before 2280 BC
R-Z381: before 2380 BC
R-BY30097: before 2410 BC
R-Z2265: before 2440 BC
R-U106: before 2470 BC
R-L11/L151/P311: before 2560 BC
Better constraints for U106 and L11 come from RISE98 and other ancient burials.
The Y-STR difference between the R-S1894 and R-L11 ancestral values is:
DYS492=12->13 @ Z2265
DYS464c=17->16 @ Z156
DYF395s1=15-16 -> 16-16 @ DF98
DYS557=16->15 @ DF98
DYS607=14 @ S1911
DYS511=12->11 @ S1894
DYS552=24->25 @ S1894 [exact location questionable]
The expected timeframe for this set of mutations is much shorter, only about 500 years. The discrepancy may be due to missing back mutations in this dataset, and is hopefully something we can explore better in the coming months. However, it points to a relative absence of STR mutations between the R-Z156 MRCA and R-Z304's, and a relative surfeit between the R-Z304 MRCA and R-DF98's, with implications for the time periods between these clades. The relative proximity of the R-Z306 SNPs Z8161, Z305 and Z306 (respectively hg38 positions 20404882, 20443277 and 20625892) could indicate an origin in a single event, but I've no idea how likely this is.
Any implications for the migration history of these branches can only be guesswork at this stage, particularly for someone with no archaeological background like myself. It will take time to ruminate and fully understand what these sources are telling us. However, we can derive some pointers for the origins and spread of U106 from this man.
The western Czech Republic is very much the eastern boundary of the modern R-U106 and R-L11 bulk distributions. Myres et al. (2007) notes a 28% R-M269 frequency and a 14% R-U106 frequency in the Czech Republic, part of a declining trend heading eastwards. Without any evidence of R-U106 basal clades or a substantial modern R-U106 population to the east of Prague, it's hard to imagine the R-U106 common ancestor lived much further east.
The Unetice culture provides some context for the burial. It extended across most of the modern Czech Republic and north-west into Germany and south-western Poland. It abuts the Copper Age cultures of the western Baltic, which provide the basis for the RISE98 U106 burial, and the Bell Beaker culture to the west, which had statistically zero R-U106 until around 1700 BC, when the first R-U106 makes an appearance in the Hook of Holland. Temporally, this combined evidence suggests an ancestral origin for R-U106 within the broader Corded Ware umbrella in the regions between Prague and the Baltic. Hence, taken with the ancient R-P312 burials and modern R-S1194 distribution, I'd posit the R-L11 MRCA living somewhere across the north coast of Germany. However, I hasten to add that similar extrapolation would not have predicted a R-S1894 burial in Prague!
Geographically, the R-Z156 clade lies towards the southern extent of the R-U106 distribution. One possible reason for this could be that R-Z156 found itself as part of the group that founded the Unetice culture, differentiating it from the Corded Ware culture. Whether this was via the Nitra culture or not, I don't know.
McDonald also thinks that subclades of U106 descended from Z156 probably don't have anything to do with Germanic people:
If this is the case, the predominant spread of R-Z156 (and potentially other R-U106 clades) westwards would probably come with incorporation into the Tumulus culture, and we see a very significant increase in the number of R-U106 clades (indicating a population explosion) around the same time. It would also explain some of the sporadic eastern European R-Z156 results we have: unlike other major eastern R-U106 groups (which mostly show descent from Sweden or Germany during Gothic or post-Roman times), eastern R-Z156 populations seem to have a more ancient origin that may tie into the trade links of the Unetice culture and its descendants.
Again, these are some of the questions we hope to probe better with statistical analysis in the coming year or so. The analyses here are very much early opinions and rough calculations rather than established fact.
It seems that two Roman-era U106 gladiators from Eburacum (York) belonged to the same branch of U106 as this Unetice sample.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25738
I7196, Czech Republic, Jinonice, Unetice culture, 2200-1700 BC, R1b-U106
It is a rather advanced stage of demographic development of U106, because this individual is positive for many downstream SNPs (according to Ian McDonland he is U106 > Z2265 > BY30097 > Z381 > Z156 > Z305/Z306/Z307/Z8191 > Z304 > DF98 > S1911 > S1894/S1900).
Two other early known samples of U106 are from southern Sweden (RISE98) and the Netherlands (I4070):
http://i.imgur.com/pg2bEQX.png
Ian McDonald currently thinks that U106 did not originate from Bell Beaker culture, but from Corded Ware:
Our new U106 ancient burial from Prague has now been further refined to:
U106 > Z2265 > BY30097 > Z381 > Z156 > Z306 > Z304 > DF98 > S1911 > S1894
Being S1894+ myself, this obviously makes me very happy. I've been very lucky to have two out of the five early U106+ burials be R-S1894. However, it also raise some interesting possibilities for everyone else. I should point out that the S1911 and S1894 assignments are made from single reads, but that's normally ok providing one is not searching for novel variants and provided the read quality is ok.
These are still very early days for understanding this burial and the context in which he was found. Perhaps the most important factor here is the date of the burial. Carbon dating hasn't (as far as I can work out) been performed. Contextually, the site has been given a date of between 2200 BC and 1700 BC in the Olalde publication, and we have to assume from the R-S1894 haplogroup that the burial lies towards the end of this period.
This is interesting in the context of the age and spread of the older U106 branches. This burial closest U106 individual to an existing lineage that we know of: the Swedish (RISE98), Dutch (Olalde) and York (Roman) burials are all many centuries more recent than their most-recent known haplogroups, and don't give us great constraints on the ages of haplogroups. I had dated S1894 to between 2545 BC and 1231 BC, with a best guess of 1866 BC. Clearly, if this burial is S1894+, the real date must be in the earlier part of this timeframe. This pushes back the most likely dates of all the haplogroups around it. The following are guideline ages for the youngest each clade is likely to be (i.e. we can be 95% confident the true ages are older than these dates):
R-S1894: before 1740 BC
R-S1911: before 1800 BC
R-DF98: before 1875 BC
R-Z304: before 1895 BC
R-Z306: before 1950 BC
R-Z156: before 2280 BC
R-Z381: before 2380 BC
R-BY30097: before 2410 BC
R-Z2265: before 2440 BC
R-U106: before 2470 BC
R-L11/L151/P311: before 2560 BC
Better constraints for U106 and L11 come from RISE98 and other ancient burials.
The Y-STR difference between the R-S1894 and R-L11 ancestral values is:
DYS492=12->13 @ Z2265
DYS464c=17->16 @ Z156
DYF395s1=15-16 -> 16-16 @ DF98
DYS557=16->15 @ DF98
DYS607=14 @ S1911
DYS511=12->11 @ S1894
DYS552=24->25 @ S1894 [exact location questionable]
The expected timeframe for this set of mutations is much shorter, only about 500 years. The discrepancy may be due to missing back mutations in this dataset, and is hopefully something we can explore better in the coming months. However, it points to a relative absence of STR mutations between the R-Z156 MRCA and R-Z304's, and a relative surfeit between the R-Z304 MRCA and R-DF98's, with implications for the time periods between these clades. The relative proximity of the R-Z306 SNPs Z8161, Z305 and Z306 (respectively hg38 positions 20404882, 20443277 and 20625892) could indicate an origin in a single event, but I've no idea how likely this is.
Any implications for the migration history of these branches can only be guesswork at this stage, particularly for someone with no archaeological background like myself. It will take time to ruminate and fully understand what these sources are telling us. However, we can derive some pointers for the origins and spread of U106 from this man.
The western Czech Republic is very much the eastern boundary of the modern R-U106 and R-L11 bulk distributions. Myres et al. (2007) notes a 28% R-M269 frequency and a 14% R-U106 frequency in the Czech Republic, part of a declining trend heading eastwards. Without any evidence of R-U106 basal clades or a substantial modern R-U106 population to the east of Prague, it's hard to imagine the R-U106 common ancestor lived much further east.
The Unetice culture provides some context for the burial. It extended across most of the modern Czech Republic and north-west into Germany and south-western Poland. It abuts the Copper Age cultures of the western Baltic, which provide the basis for the RISE98 U106 burial, and the Bell Beaker culture to the west, which had statistically zero R-U106 until around 1700 BC, when the first R-U106 makes an appearance in the Hook of Holland. Temporally, this combined evidence suggests an ancestral origin for R-U106 within the broader Corded Ware umbrella in the regions between Prague and the Baltic. Hence, taken with the ancient R-P312 burials and modern R-S1194 distribution, I'd posit the R-L11 MRCA living somewhere across the north coast of Germany. However, I hasten to add that similar extrapolation would not have predicted a R-S1894 burial in Prague!
Geographically, the R-Z156 clade lies towards the southern extent of the R-U106 distribution. One possible reason for this could be that R-Z156 found itself as part of the group that founded the Unetice culture, differentiating it from the Corded Ware culture. Whether this was via the Nitra culture or not, I don't know.
McDonald also thinks that subclades of U106 descended from Z156 probably don't have anything to do with Germanic people:
If this is the case, the predominant spread of R-Z156 (and potentially other R-U106 clades) westwards would probably come with incorporation into the Tumulus culture, and we see a very significant increase in the number of R-U106 clades (indicating a population explosion) around the same time. It would also explain some of the sporadic eastern European R-Z156 results we have: unlike other major eastern R-U106 groups (which mostly show descent from Sweden or Germany during Gothic or post-Roman times), eastern R-Z156 populations seem to have a more ancient origin that may tie into the trade links of the Unetice culture and its descendants.
Again, these are some of the questions we hope to probe better with statistical analysis in the coming year or so. The analyses here are very much early opinions and rough calculations rather than established fact.
It seems that two Roman-era U106 gladiators from Eburacum (York) belonged to the same branch of U106 as this Unetice sample.