World Families Forums - What DNA testing of ancient remains has been published?

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
April 19, 2014, 11:24:51 PM
Home Help Search Login Register

+  World Families Forums
|-+  General Forums - Note: You must Be Logged In to post. Anyone can browse.
| |-+  R1b General (Moderator: rms2)
| | |-+  What DNA testing of ancient remains has been published?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Go Down Print
Author Topic: What DNA testing of ancient remains has been published?  (Read 724 times)
ArmandoR1b
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 30


« on: March 02, 2013, 11:06:30 PM »

What remains have been tested for genealogical DNA prior to about 1000 A.D. I think I saw a post within the past 6 months to a website that has a list of them but I can't remember which thread had them. I started paying attention to that around the time the Oetzi results were published. I have read about other results being published since then but I also want to see what has been published prior to that.

Also, I have read about cremations being done by certain groups of people for a long period of time which will prevent us from ever getting genealogical DNA from them. Which groups and time period was that?
Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #1 on: March 03, 2013, 12:32:02 PM »

My table of Ancient Western Eurasian DNA is probably what you are looking for. If you look in the menu left there are some other related pages.

Cremation had been popular at various times and places. I'm not sure that I could produce a list, but certainly that includes Urnfield
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #2 on: March 03, 2013, 05:41:04 PM »

I have a link to a map in my signature below, but here it is:

Ancient European Y-DNA (to about 1000 BC)

It is based on some but not all of the ancient y-dna information at Jean's web site. I went with the Western European stuff and made the cut-off for the most recent entries about 1,000 BC.
« Last Edit: March 03, 2013, 05:41:30 PM by rms2 » Logged

glentane
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 64


« Reply #3 on: March 03, 2013, 06:21:44 PM »

Couple more Corded Ware partial profiles, this time from Wrocław, although there's a deal of headscratching as to what they truly are. All everybody can agree on is "not R", probably G (again) and something else a bit like J (or I or E ...)
Dienekes
« Last Edit: March 03, 2013, 06:22:02 PM by glentane » Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #4 on: March 03, 2013, 06:31:33 PM »

Couple more Corded Ware partial profiles, this time from Wrocław, although there's a deal of headscratching as to what they truly are. All everybody can agree on is "not R", probably G (again) and something else a bit like J (or I or E ...)
Dienekes

Seems there is some uncertainty as to the y haplogroups there, but thanks for the heads-up.
Logged

ArmandoR1b
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 30


« Reply #5 on: March 03, 2013, 10:49:17 PM »

My table of Ancient Western Eurasian DNA is probably what you are looking for. If you look in the menu left there are some other related pages.

Cremation had been popular at various times and places. I'm not sure that I could produce a list, but certainly that includes Urnfield

Thanks. That is what I was looking for.

I have a link to a map in my signature below, but here it is:

Ancient European Y-DNA (to about 1000 BC)

It is based on some but not all of the ancient y-dna information at Jean's web site. I went with the Western European stuff and made the cut-off for the most recent entries about 1,000 BC.

Thanks. This is also helpful.
Logged
ArmandoR1b
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 30


« Reply #6 on: March 03, 2013, 11:03:30 PM »

So R1b-M269 older than about 2600 B.C. has not been found in any ancient remains? Did R1b-M269 make it to Germany before it made it to Iberia or is it coincidence that the oldest remains found of R1b-M269 were in Germany? Is it assumed that the Lichtenstein Cave R1b remains are R1b-M269? I see they are identified as Urnfield. Did all Urnfield sites use cremation?
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #7 on: March 04, 2013, 09:13:29 PM »

So R1b-M269 older than about 2600 B.C. has not been found in any ancient remains? Did R1b-M269 make it to Germany before it made it to Iberia or is it coincidence that the oldest remains found of R1b-M269 were in Germany? Is it assumed that the Lichtenstein Cave R1b remains are R1b-M269? I see they are identified as Urnfield. Did all Urnfield sites use cremation?

Honestly, I'm not really sure why the Lichtenstein Cave remains are identified as Urnfield. I think maybe there were Urnfield type artifacts among the remains, but I don't recall. Interring remains in a cave isn't typical Urnfield practice, which involved cremation, putting the ashes and whatever else remained in urns, and burying them in cemeteries called "urnfields" after that practice.

As I recall, the Lichtenstein Cave remains were not actually SNP tested. The haplogroups for them are predictions based on haplotypes.

Yes, the Kromsdorf Beaker remains are thus far the oldest known R-M269 remains found anywhere. I do not know who got where first.
Logged

ArmandoR1b
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 30


« Reply #8 on: March 05, 2013, 01:04:34 AM »

So R1b-M269 older than about 2600 B.C. has not been found in any ancient remains? Did R1b-M269 make it to Germany before it made it to Iberia or is it coincidence that the oldest remains found of R1b-M269 were in Germany? Is it assumed that the Lichtenstein Cave R1b remains are R1b-M269? I see they are identified as Urnfield. Did all Urnfield sites use cremation?

Honestly, I'm not really sure why the Lichtenstein Cave remains are identified as Urnfield. I think maybe there were Urnfield type artifacts among the remains, but I don't recall. Interring remains in a cave isn't typical Urnfield practice, which involved cremation, putting the ashes and whatever else remained in urns, and burying them in cemeteries called "urnfields" after that practice.

As I recall, the Lichtenstein Cave remains were not actually SNP tested. The haplogroups for them are predictions based on haplotypes.

Yes, the Kromsdorf Beaker remains are thus far the oldest known R-M269 remains found anywhere. I do not know who got where first.

I was wondering if Lichtenstein Cave remains was a one off or if a mix of burials and cremations happened at other times. After looking at Wikipedia I see that it says "The transition is gradual, in the pottery as well as the burial rites. In some parts of Germany, cremation and inhumation existed simultaneously (facies Wölfersheim). Some graves contain a combination of tumulus-culture pottery and Urnfield swords (Kressborn, Bodenseekreis) or tumulus culture incised pottery together with early Urnfield types (Mengen). " So I guess that answers my question on that aspect of Urnfield.

Looking at the following document I see that the R1b individual at Lichtenstein Cave is considered to be U106(S21)+

http://dirkschweitzer.net/LichtensteinCaveAnalysis0804DS.pdf

Your page has it as M343. I take it that since the prediction was based on STRs you prefer to use M343.


Reviewing Jean's site it looks like the oldest remains of R1b in Spain are from 500-700 AD. I hope more sites are found in the near future in Spain, and the rest of Europe, that contain remains that can be SNP tested for R1b.
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #9 on: March 05, 2013, 01:26:21 PM »

Yeah, Dirk Schweitzer predicted U106+ for that Lichtenstein Cave apparent R1b based on its short haplotype and mainly its 390=23. But there are plenty of U106- guys who have 390=23 (I am one), and the Lichtenstein Cave remains were not SNP tested.
Logged

Pages: [1] Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


SEO light theme by © Mustang forums. Powered by SMF 1.1.13 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines LLC

Page created in 0.076 seconds with 18 queries.