PDA

View Full Version : 9919 (R1b-L21>DF13) 459=9,9 YCAII=19,19 and oftentimes 640=12



Mikewww
08-18-2013, 09:32 PM
Erik M started the "9919" project this year. There is is a large group of L21+ DF13+ people that have 459=9,9 and YCAII=19,19. This could be the result of a recLOH but others can assess that much better than I. What is noteworthy is that a very large subset of these fellows also are 640=12 and that is pretty slow marker. One of the subgroups or varieties have an Iberian basis. I think Richard S/RMS found that group a couple of years ago.


This project's primary focus is on researching the cluster known as z9919, whose primary characteristics are double 9s at the 459 marker and double 19s at the YCAII marker. They are DF13+, but have not yet found their defining SNP downstream from DF13. Each member who has tested any SNPs downstream from DF13 has come back negative for each and every one. At least one z9919 member ordered a WTY test. FTDNA was unable to find any new SNPs in his WTY. Several Geno 2.0 tests also found no new SNP under DF13. The hope is that one member of this cluster can ultimately have full Y-chromosome sequencing done, to find a defining SNP and discover this cluster's position (or multiple positions if 9919 actually consists of more than one major haplogroup) in the grand scheme of DF13.

This project will also look into recLOHs in general, and is open to any person with suspected recLOHs in any haplogroup. If you have two or more doubled multicopy markers, for which the double values are relatively uncommon (for example, 385=11-11, or YCAII=23-23, or 413=21-21), then please join this project by clicking Join Request at the top of the page. Be aware that some doubled marker values, such as 464=15-15-17-17 and 413=23-23 in an R1b kit, are perfectly normal and highly unlikely to be recLOHs. Please read the recLOH details below to have a sense of which doubled marker values would likely be recLOHs, and which would not. http://www.familytreedna.com/public/recloh/default.aspx

George Chandler
08-20-2013, 10:41 PM
I'm wondering how many people in this group have done a more in depth genealogy search of their family history? What I'm thinking of here is in terms of actually hiring a professional genealogist to perform the research. When we place our oldest known ancestor beside our Y signature to me that means a date where you are able to confirm using DNA. I'm not sure if it means the same things to others though?..when I look at someone's test kit results..is the date of the oldest known ancestor that which is on paper or proven with DNA? If we get a cluster of results from a certain area or country is it because we originated there or is it a lack of information in terms of genealogy for the most part?

George Chandler

Mikewww
08-21-2013, 12:14 AM
I'm wondering how many people in this group have done a more in depth genealogy search of their family history? What I'm thinking of here is in terms of actually hiring a professional genealogist to perform the research. When we place our oldest known ancestor beside our Y signature to me that means a date where you are able to confirm using DNA. I'm not sure if it means the same things to others though?..when I look at someone's test kit results..is the date of the oldest known ancestor that which is on paper or proven with DNA? If we get a cluster of results from a certain area or country is it because we originated there or is it a lack of information in terms of genealogy for the most part?

George Chandler

I don't know but I highly recommend someone setting up a place to share information. In my subclade, I asked everyone to submit any articles they've written. Most of the families haven't, although some had surname oriented analyses. However, several had some very nice genetic genealogy papers... I mean with real genealogy and family history to go with the genetic data.

George Chandler
08-21-2013, 02:57 AM
That's a good idea. I don't put much value on a persons paperwork (even good paperwork) unless it's proven with DNA like the Somerled lines were. It would be interesting to see though if people are posting the oldest known ancestor proven through DNA and if there is paperwork which goes farther back which could reveal a pattern. I'll ask Erik to see if he wants to do something like that with the 9919 RecLOH Group.

Mikewww
08-21-2013, 03:41 AM
That's a good idea. I don't put much value on a persons paperwork (even good paperwork) unless it's proven with DNA like the Somerled lines were. It would be interesting to see though if people are posting the oldest known ancestor proven through DNA and if there is paperwork which goes farther back which could reveal a pattern. I'll ask Erik to see if he wants to do something like that with the 9919 RecLOH Group.

Well, don't misread me. I don't take all of the genealogy, family history and folklore as gospel. I think they are interesting and I think there may be nuggets gleaned from them. If various pieces can be fit together, which generally they can, then you are getting somewhere.

I'm a skeptic in these regards, though. When did Somerled live? about 1300 AD or so. That's a long time ago. I'm not sure how great our/their genealogical records are going back 700 years. A lot of things could have happened. Now, if they have genetic data that triangulates in on the same potential person and genealogies, that's impressive.... proven? I don't know about proven. That takes a lot. I'm not picking on Somerled. I haven't studied the whole thing, but its just a long time ago for paperwork that hasn't been double certified and stored in Fort Knox vaults.

George Chandler
08-21-2013, 03:07 PM
I agree with what you're saying in terms of proving with triangulation. I'll have to check the tree chart again but if I recall it was showing names, dates and triangulated MRCA a couple of generations below Somerled. Is it possible that the line broke during those couple of generations sure but I doubt it. Personally I'm convinced it's highly likely that the R1a lines are likely from Somerled unless someone provides better evidence. In the same way people can put whatever they want in their tree without evidence until someone takes the time to investigate and and prove it isn't. If you take for example one of the genealogly search sites removed about 5 generations of information on my family. Their explanation was because it wasn't found on the Ancestry site. The person on my avatar photo was an uncle of mine during the civil war and an officer in the 88th Illinois Reg't. Someone doubted this and looked into the information regarding him being killed in battle and saw a officer in the same Reg't with the same first and last name who mustered out in 1863 and didn't believe the information. All it would have taken was to look a bit closer and the person would have seen that there were 2 different officers in the same Reg't with the name George Chandler. The only difference was the rank and the middle name..so sometimes people are very quick to disagree or not believe something (not meaning you) without actually doing the proper investigative work themselves.

I agree it get's really messy the further back you go in terms of genealogy information and even experts can make mistakes. Some don't like putting paper on their peg board until so to speak until it's been proven. I like putting it all up and moving things around as more information comes in.