In the table below are links to Y-SNP calls for DNA samples from ancient Northern Europe.
| Sample | Country | Culture | Date BC | Haplogroup |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Popovo 2 | Russia | Mesolithic | 7500–5000 | J1~L255 |
| Donkalnis 4 | Lithuania | Mesolithic | 6000–5740 | I(xI1) |
| Donkalnis 7 | Lithuania | Narva | 5460–4940 | R1b1a1a1~M73 |
| Kivisaare 3 | Estonia | Narva | 4730–4540 | R1b1a1a~P297 |
| Spiginas 1 | Lithuania | Narva | 4440–4240 | I2a1a2a1a-L233 |
| Kretuonas 5 | Lithuania | Narva | 4450–4340 | I2a1b~Y3104(xI2a1b2) |
| Tamula 3 | Estonia | Comb Ceramic | 3800–3640 | R1b1a~L754 |
| Gyvakarai 1 | Lithuania | Late Neolithic | 2620–2470 | R1a1a1b1a-Y2395 |
| Spiginas 2 | Lithuania | Late Neolithic | 2130–1750 | R1a1a1b1a2b-CTS1211 |
| Olsund | Sweden | Late Neolithic | 2573–2140 | R1~M173 |
| Turlojiske 3 | Lithuania | Bronze Age | 1010–800 | R1a1a1b1a2a-YP617 |
| Turlojiske 5 | Lithuania | Bronze Age | 2100–600 | R1a1a1b~Z645 |
| Kivutkalns 153 | Latvia | Bronze Age | 800–545 | R1a1a1b1a3-YP1370 |
| Kivutkalns 19 | Latvia | Bronze Age | 730–400 | R1a1a1b1a2b-Y13467 |
| Kivutkalns 25 | Latvia | Bronze Age | 800–545 | R1a1a1b1a2b-CTS1211 |
| Kivutkalns 209 | Latvia | Bronze Age | 405–230 | R1a1a1b1a2b-Y13467 |
| Kivutkalns 222 | Latvia | Bronze Age | 805–515 | R1a1a1b1a2b-Y13467 |
Can you show calls o Spiginas2 and some Kivutkalns samples with higher coverage if some of them are Z280 Z92?
Thank you. And what about olsund r1a-z645 sample ane mesolithic Spiginas I2a-L233? L233 is to young subclade for mesolithic?
The TMRCA for modern I2-L233 Y chromosomes is 2,200 years ago, but I2-L233 began to diverge from I2-Y11949 around 8,000 years ago. You can see in the calls that Spiginas 1 is positive for some of the mutations found in all modern I2-L233 Y chromosomes, and negative for others, as would be expected for a sample its age.
Can you post y calls also for Turloijske1 and 3 and Kivutkalns215 and 222? Its Olsund sample only R1? In study belongs to r1a-z645 at least?
Either the calls in the paper for Olsund are wrong, or the data that was made available for Olsund is incomplete, because there are no reads for those SNPs in the available data. The same is true for Turlojiske 1.
I’ve looked at several samples, and they all have significantly fewer reads in the available data than what was reported in the paper. The available data for Olsund, for example, includes 709,579 reads, but the paper lists it as having 20,183,246 reads.
Ok, even with lower data youn can show many samples. What about last better sample Kreutonas2 I2a1b. In study they said, that could be possibly L161?