PDA

View Full Version : early R1a - M17 negative



alan
09-16-2013, 11:33 PM
I am looking to understand the early R1a clades like M720* and SRY1532.2* better. When R1a is discussed it rarely seems to be about the upstream of M17 aspect. I am guessing from the clade tables posted before that M17 is thought to date to around 6000BC. So I am curious about the earliest part of the R1a story from M420 until M17. I would guess that that must cover a long period of time from maybe as early as 16000BC to as late as 6000BC.

Previous discussions tend to only focus on M17 down. I am interested in the early phase. For R-R1-early R1b working through all the new data and reading various papers on this, climate, archaeology etc pretty well made me come to the conclusion that R probably originated in north-west central Asia, R1 probably originated in northern Iran and R1b probably also. So, does this sort of model also fit for R1a upstream of M17?

AJL
09-16-2013, 11:50 PM
There aren't many documented guys between SRY1532.2 and M417 as you can see here:

http://www.familytreedna.com/public/r1a/default.aspx?section=yresults

http://www.familytreedna.com/public/R1Asterisk/default.aspx?section=yresults

The distribution of these few examples might conceivably point to an origin somewhere not too far from Eastern or Central Europe, but there's not much to go on, and the areas of interest to your query, around the Iranian Plateau, are very undertested. I rather suspect R1a-Z93 arose here, but I wouldn't say we have enough evidence to pin down the very early R1a before M417.

cmorley
09-17-2013, 01:05 AM
Alan and AJL,

Have you looked at the Geno 2.0 results for kit N114240? See http://www.familytreedna.com/public/r-arabia/default.aspx?section=ysnp .

This kit has all the SNPs at the R1a level, but lacks the SNPs at the R1a1 level. Or at least that's what FTDNA is reporting. I haven't seen the raw data.

Looks like there is also an à la carte M417- result for this kit.

AJL
09-17-2013, 02:13 AM
Thanks!

Unfortunately he does not appear to be a project member of ours yet. He might possibly be M98+ M417-, which is rare but known to occur. This Arab instance together with the Belarussian examples might provide some credence for an origin somewhere between these two places, which could indeed mean the Iranian Plateau, but again samples are very scarce.

alan
09-17-2013, 06:14 PM
Any academic studies help on this subject. Its a heck of a gap in our knowledge about R1a, even worse than for early R1b. At least with R1b there is a little R1b*, and P25* to fill the gap. However, from the information presented so far on this thread there is very little between R1 and downstream of M17.

AJL
09-18-2013, 12:18 AM
I do not anticipate many academic studies on R1a being useful because they typically do not test enough markers to be meaningful, or cover a wide enough swath. The last (and maybe the only) breakthrough academic paper on R1a was Peter Underhill's, which announced the discovery of M458 in 2009.

parasar
09-18-2013, 01:49 AM
I do not anticipate many academic studies on R1a being useful because they typically do not test enough markers to be meaningful, or cover a wide enough swath. The last (and maybe the only) breakthrough academic paper on R1a was Peter Underhill's, which announced the discovery of M458 in 2009.

Fully agree about the "last" past.

Regarding the "only," true, Underhill's was excellent, but I still wish for more analysis like Passarino's - http://www.historycy.org/index.php?act=Attach&type=post&id=4537 - even though IMO his North of Black Sea origin theory for M17 still remains unproven.

AJL
09-18-2013, 02:23 AM
Fully agree about the "last" past.

Regarding the "only," true, Underhill's was excellent, but I still wish for more analysis like Passarino's - http://www.historycy.org/index.php?act=Attach&type=post&id=4537 - even though IMO his North of Black Sea origin theory for M17 still remains unproven.

Yes, it would be good to see some big-picture thinking like that with today's SNPS.

alan
09-18-2013, 11:35 PM
Well Wiki drawing on underhill says

[I]Only isolated samples of the new paragroup R-M420* were found by Underhill 2009, mostly in the Middle East and Caucasus: 1/121 Omanis, 2/150 Iranians, 1/164 in the United Arab Emirates, and 3/612 in Turkey. Testing of 7224 more males in 73 other Eurasian populations showed no sign of this category.(Underhill 2009)

So, there is some parallel with these R1a paragroups and the R1b early paragroups as well as R1*. I find it odd that this tends not to be discussed in relation to R1a but does for R1b. The phenomena are similar. So it is likely the explanation is too.

AJL
09-18-2013, 11:54 PM
So, there is some parallel with these R1a paragroups and the R1b early paragroups as well as R1*. I find it odd that this tends not to be discussed in relation to R1a but does for R1b. The phenomena are similar. So it is likely the explanation is too.

I suspect a lot of people in the know re early R1b like Vince V have paid attention to this, as have some R1a specialists and the R2 people, who are always interested in connecting to R1 as well. The issue is we don't actually have many project members at FTDNA conclusively tested as M420* so we can't test these subjects with TGP2 or Full Y, for example. But I do think the little we have points toward R1 arising near the Iranian Plain. Humanist posted a great map of early animal domestication in another thread, and there was apaprently quite a spread from this area about 10,000 y.a.

Fire Haired
09-19-2013, 03:28 AM
R1a1a1 M417 was extremely major in early Indo European speakers around Russia and UKriane with Bug Dniester and Yamna cultures. Y DNA spread by Indo Europeans (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1337-Y-DNA-spread-by-Indo-Europeans-(R1a1a1-M417-R1b1a2a1-L51)-(R1b-L23-R1b-M73-Etc-)). Since it spread out of eastern Europe. and early remains from Indo iranian cultures in asia like 3,800,-3,400ybp samples from Andronovo in central Siberia and the 4,000 year old tarim mummies show they were light skinned and mainly fair haired shows they came from Europe. eastern Europe seems to have the oldest age of R1a maybe it originated there.

alan
09-19-2013, 10:51 AM
iMO y lineages do not impact except in a minor way on autosomal DNA unless their migrations are accompanied by woman. Thing is if a small influential lineage moves into a new area and largely mixes with the local women it only takes a few generations to lose much of their autosomal DNA. After all a person only carries on average one sixteenth of the autosomal dna of even their GG grandfather. So if marrying the local women was the norm then a yDNA line will quickly take on the autosomal pattern of any given locality. So, yes R1 groups may have gained a more northern autosomal pattern if they migrated and lived in the north of the Pontic-Caspian for many centuries before moving at a later date but it may not have been the original autosomal dna associated with the y lineage.

If you look at the pattern their is no denying that R*, R1* and the most upstream forms of R1a and b focus on an area south of the Pontic-Caspian. Its possible that this is some sort of paradox but at face value it points to somewhere around north Iran. However, please note that this is pre-farming period and from the point of view of the sort of racial aspects you mention in your post it is worth noting that these early R peoples around north Iran and adjacent may or may not have been very different from modern Iranians etc autosomally.

IMO the most likely position for R* was north-west central Asia and it was driven south by the cold desertification of that region during the glacial maximum in two directions with R1* occurring around the south shore of the Caspian c. 16500BC and R2 heading towards India etc. Later R1b and R1a may have arisen around the south Caspian shores among the driven hunters there. There were dramatic shrinkings of the Caspian during the ice age to several times less its modern size and incredible expansions of the Caspian c. 15000-10000BC to several times more its modern size which greatly complicates interpretation of what early R1a and b would have done in that period.

If I had to guess at the original R autosomal DNA it would be Gedrosia. However, as I said a y DNA lineages group will generally be dictated by the women of the locality where it moves to so this original pattern could easily be lost or left as a minor input.


R1a1a1 M417 was extremely major in early Indo European speakers around Russia and UKriane with Bug Dniester and Yamna cultures. Y DNA spread by Indo Europeans (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1337-Y-DNA-spread-by-Indo-Europeans-(R1a1a1-M417-R1b1a2a1-L51)-(R1b-L23-R1b-M73-Etc-)). Since it spread out of eastern Europe. and early remains from Indo iranian cultures in asia like 3,800,-3,400ybp samples from Andronovo in central Siberia and the 4,000 year old tarim mummies show they were light skinned and mainly fair haired shows they came from Europe. eastern Europe seems to have the oldest age of R1a maybe it originated there.

alan
09-19-2013, 11:35 AM
I definately think when going back to very early origins we need to consider R, R1*, R2 and very upstream R1a and b together. There are basically no pre-5000BC clades of R1a and b on the north side of the Pontic-Caspian and a lot more in the south. So, the face value interpretation is that the latter expanded north after the ice age. I just get a bit frustrated that this aspect of R1a history seems to be never discussed giving the impression that many people interested in R1a just prefer to ignore this and give the impression that R1a is indigenous to the north Pontic-Caspian area and descended from local hunters even though none of the clades there seem to pre-date 4000BC. Taken at face value the evidence suggests that R1a and R1b arrived from the south at some point between 9000 and 5000BC. So, if people want to see R1a or b as indigenous to the north pontic-Caspian they need to produce arguements for this.

As far as I can see there is no genetic evidence of R1a as indigenous to the north Pontic-Caspian other than negative evidence. Anyway, the main point is there seems to be no genetic support to contrast the early histories of R1a and b as in both cases they are represented by a sprinkling of paragroups south of the Pontic-Caspian. Yet for some reason R1a still gets treated differently from R1b in terms of interpretation of the very early periods. I cannot see a shred of evidence to support that. In fact, the highest variance R1 clade of any type north of the pontic-Caspian area is an R1b one - M73 c. 5 or 6000BC. Its also probably the oldest R1b subclade downstream of P25 anywhere. So, at face value there is earlier evidence of R1b north of the Pontic-Caspian than there is for R1a. The subclades of the latter with a more northerly distribution seem to date from 3500BC onwards.

Yet again, this is not the impression you would get from prevailing hobbiest interpretations which often seem to be based on back-projecting copper age patterns into remote prehistory. With a few exceptions who are looking at the data more scientifically I think there are too many people who are happy to close their eyes to the data and assume some sort of primordial origin of R1a among ice age hunters of the north Pontic area. Having read into this period in that area it seems a lot less likely to me that they were R1 peoples. The hunters in that area generally were located mainly from the Crimea to the Bospherus. They also had later links with the Baltic area. The Caspian expansion c. 15000-10000BC eliminated much of the more southerly land east of the Ukraine anyway. So, on balance it seems much more likely that the ice age hunters of the north Pontic area were haplogroup I peoples.



I suspect a lot of people in the know re early R1b like Vince V have paid attention to this, as have some R1a specialists and the R2 people, who are always interested in connecting to R1 as well. The issue is we don't actually have many project members at FTDNA conclusively tested as M420* so we can't test these subjects with TGP2 or Full Y, for example. But I do think the little we have points toward R1 arising near the Iranian Plain. Humanist posted a great map of early animal domestication in another thread, and there was apaprently quite a spread from this area about 10,000 y.a.

Andrew Lancaster
09-19-2013, 12:40 PM
Unfortunately a lot of speculative energy concerning early R branching has been diverted into discussions of eastern Asia, due to a few fairly dubious (IMHO) genetic genealogy articles made over the years. I agree with people here that all evidence is pointing to the Middle East.

newtoboard
09-19-2013, 12:45 PM
I definately think when going back to very early origins we need to consider R, R1*, R2 and very upstream R1a and b together. There are basically no pre-5000BC clades of R1a and b on the north side of the Pontic-Caspian and a lot more in the south. So, the face value interpretation is that the latter expanded north after the ice age. I just get a bit frustrated that this aspect of R1a history seems to be never discussed giving the impression that many people interested in R1a just prefer to ignore this and give the impression that R1a is indigenous to the north Pontic-Caspian area and descended from local hunters even though none of the clades there seem to pre-date 4000BC. Taken at face value the evidence suggests that R1a and R1b arrived from the south at some point between 9000 and 5000BC. So, if people want to see R1a or b as indigenous to the north pontic-Caspian they need to produce arguements for this.

As far as I can see there is no genetic evidence of R1a as indigenous to the north Pontic-Caspian other than negative evidence. Anyway, the main point is there seems to be no genetic support to contrast the early histories of R1a and b as in both cases they are represented by a sprinkling of paragroups south of the Pontic-Caspian. Yet for some reason R1a still gets treated differently from R1b in terms of interpretation of the very early periods. I cannot see a shred of evidence to support that. In fact, the highest variance R1 clade of any type north of the pontic-Caspian area is an R1b one - M73 c. 5 or 6000BC. Its also probably the oldest R1b subclade downstream of P25 anywhere. So, at face value there is earlier evidence of R1b north of the Pontic-Caspian than there is for R1a. The subclades of the latter with a more northerly distribution seem to date from 3500BC onwards.

Yet again, this is not the impression you would get from prevailing hobbiest interpretations which often seem to be based on back-projecting copper age patterns into remote prehistory. With a few exceptions who are looking at the data more scientifically I think there are too many people who are happy to close their eyes to the data and assume some sort of primordial origin of R1a among ice age hunters of the north Pontic area. Having read into this period in that area it seems a lot less likely to me that they were R1 peoples. The hunters in that area generally were located mainly from the Crimea to the Bospherus. They also had later links with the Baltic area. The Caspian expansion c. 15000-10000BC eliminated much of the more southerly land east of the Ukraine anyway. So, on balance it seems much more likely that the ice age hunters of the north Pontic area were haplogroup I peoples.

Z93+ and Z283+ could be older than that. It is quite likely that Z645+ originated in the Pontic-Caspian steppe imo. The distribution of M73 suggests its history begins east of the Pontic-Caspian steppe.

lgmayka
09-19-2013, 01:54 PM
It is quite likely that Z645+ originated in the Pontic-Caspian steppe imo.
I would go back further. The considerable northwest European distribution of L664 (which is not Z645+) suggests that M417 may have begun its expansion somewhere in northern or eastern Europe.

Earlier branch-offs (M198*, SRY10831.2*, and M420*) are more enigmatic, partly because they are so rare and but also because research studies often fail to distinguish among them.

parasar
09-19-2013, 02:08 PM
iMO y lineages do not impact except in a minor way on autosomal DNA unless their migrations are accompanied by woman. Thing is if a small influential lineage moves into a new area and largely mixes with the local women it only takes a few generations to lose much of their autosomal DNA. After all a person only carries on average one sixteenth of the autosomal dna of even their GG grandfather. So if marrying the local women was the norm then a yDNA line will quickly take on the autosomal pattern of any given locality ...

If I had to guess at the original R autosomal DNA it would be Gedrosia. However, as I said a y DNA lineages group will generally be dictated by the women of the locality where it moves to so this original pattern could easily be lost or left as a minor input.

alan,

I could not follow your logic as to why a male mediated migration would get diluted as opposed to a female mediated migration. I would have thought that fewer males (theoretically just one) could have a much stronger genetic imprint than a large number of females.

newtoboard
09-19-2013, 02:48 PM
I would go back further. The considerable northwest European distribution of L664 (which is not Z645+) suggests that M417 may have begun its expansion somewhere in northern or eastern Europe.

Earlier branch-offs (M198*, SRY10831.2*, and M420*) are more enigmatic, partly because they are so rare and but also because research studies often fail to distinguish among them.



I agree that is a possibility. M417 probably expanded from Eastern Europe as most its downstream clades look European but I think it originated in West Asia. I was just questioning Alan's idea that R1a is not old enough to have been in the Pontic Caspian steppe before 3500 BC and before R1b-M73 (and R1b as whole) whose distribution looks like it was significantly east of the Pontic-Caspian steppe and not directly north of it. I see nothing supporting Afanasievo groups being carriers of R1b-M73 as I have stated before. The Xiahoe tomb complex results support that and there are multiple problems with saying that the Xiahoe samples were Andronovo derived.

I do think the earliest clades of R1a did start in the middle east but R1a in Eastern Europe might have existed in more upstream forms than many suggest. But I do think it is significant that West Asia might have R*, R1* and upstream R1a, R1b and R2. No other region in the world has all of that.

alan
09-19-2013, 06:16 PM
alan,

I could not follow your logic as to why a male mediated migration would get diluted as opposed to a female mediated migration. I would have thought that fewer males (theoretically just one) could have a much stronger genetic imprint than a large number of females.

Basically it doesnt always apply but I think it probably does for P312. It spread across the whole of Europe in a few centuries from P312 downwards and totally exploded. They were all descended from one man not a large population. Its appears that his descendants spread extremely thinly across Europe very quickly judging by the patterning of P312 subclades and their similar variance to P312 itself. So, they were essentially settling in tiny groups among populations of far greater size by consent. The strong clade patterning in many areas suggests that there were not lots of equal waves but rather a crucial first-in wave in many areas. So small male lineage groups spread over an entire continent and separated by enormous distances are going to breed with the locals and that is going to dilute their autosomal impact massively. In fact marrying locally was probably crucial to their acceptance and for forming alliances. t

This of course doesnt apply if their is a major folk movement but I dont think there is evidence of a major folk movement in Europe after the Neolithic except in parts of eastern Europe.

alan
09-19-2013, 06:35 PM
I didnt literally mean that R1a had not arrived there before 3500BC or that that date should be taken too literally given all the uncertainties. I really just mean that there is no clear evidence of it. I would suspect that R1a arrived a millenia or two earlier but there is a bit of a genetic blank between the early paragroups and the big copper age expansion which leaves things very unclear. Its broadly similar to R1b which lacks modern representatives of the P297* phase between 9000 BC and the appearance of M73 and M269 4 or 5000 years later. However, that blank I think tells a story in itself and is probably due to it being located in area of late hunters who struggled to reproduce their lineages before 4 or 5000BC. Unfortunately areas where farming was late not only includes the steppes but also includes area like the south Caspian, Caucasus etc. So, its hard to narrow down its location in that period before 5000BC. What I think is telling though is that even when farming arrived in the south Caspian, Caucasus and adjacent areas, this did not lead to any early derived P297 clade in more southerly areas. In fact the oldest clade is M73 which is located more northerly and is all but unknown in the south Caucasus Iran etc. It suggests to me that P297 probably occurred further north or maybe even en-route north. Otherwise it is hard to explain why the oldest clade would be northern and there is not much P297 derived clades further south except below L23 which is 1500 years younger.

Personally the evidence as it stands would be easiest to interpret as a move north around 9000-6000BC. I suspect this might also be true of R1a. I notice that while the most upstream R1a clade M420* looks southern the next most upstream clade SRY1532.2 is a mixture of both. Suggesting that the first R1a move north happened in the middle of that phase. Has anyone ever been able to calculate a variance date for SRY1532.2?



I agree that is a possibility. M417 probably expanded from Eastern Europe as most its downstream clades look European but I think it originated in West Asia. I was just questioning Alan's idea that R1a is not old enough to have been in the Pontic Caspian steppe before 3500 BC and before R1b-M73 (and R1b as whole) whose distribution looks like it was significantly east of the Pontic-Caspian steppe and not directly north of it. I see nothing supporting Afanasievo groups being carriers of R1b-M73 as I have stated before. The Xiahoe tomb complex results support that and there are multiple problems with saying that the Xiahoe samples were Andronovo derived.

I do think the earliest clades of R1a did start in the middle east but R1a in Eastern Europe might have existed in more upstream forms than many suggest. But I do think it is significant that West Asia might have R*, R1* and upstream R1a, R1b and R2. No other region in the world has all of that.

newtoboard
09-19-2013, 07:34 PM
What haplogroups would you associate with this culture?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelteminar_culture

ADW_1981
09-19-2013, 07:37 PM
Alan and AJL,

Have you looked at the Geno 2.0 results for kit N114240? See http://www.familytreedna.com/public/r-arabia/default.aspx?section=ysnp .

This kit has all the SNPs at the R1a level, but lacks the SNPs at the R1a1 level. Or at least that's what FTDNA is reporting. I haven't seen the raw data.

Looks like there is also an à la carte M417- result for this kit.


These kits from the same project may also be R1a*. I can't see the STRs of N114240 but maybe they are *similar* to these below in the same project:

M8363
M8009

I don't know what the age is according to SNPs, but looking at the STRs you can see the similarity between R1a* and R1b1. Just looking at the STR alone, the are a couple of major changes which take you to the R-M17 modal which would make R1a1a younger than R1b-P25 by that same logic. I haven't seen any true R1* to this point.

alan
09-19-2013, 09:50 PM
I am not sure at all. The area they lived in seems to have been totally abandoned in the LGM and earlier Mesolithic and was probably resettled from the south. This culture only appears around 5500BC in the Atlantic optimum phase. They were pottery using sedentary fisher-hunters of a distinctive type of lifestyle. However, Anthony notes that there was a strong barrier between this culture and areas to the north due to the Kyzl Kum desert. The cultural barrier seems to have prevailed for millenia. So, I dont see it as relating to R1a or b in the northern part of its story. I dont think it fits having a relation to R1a or b.

I suspect you may be thinking of a link with M73 but I just cannot see this as possible based on the evidence there is. In general I think an east Caspian route other than one very close to the shores is unlikely in the timeframe of 9000-5000BC that I am looking at for R1a. Boats were availble from the start of that period according to the Gobustan rock carvings and of course the Caspian has fluctuated enough to make finding shorelines settlements very hard.



What haplogroups would you associate with this culture?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelteminar_culture

Fire Haired
09-19-2013, 09:53 PM
I think everyone needs to understand the important fact that R1 or at least R were originally Mongliod. If u see were it is placed in the human y DNa family tree. It is brother to Q dominate in native Americans and central Siberians and cousins to O dominte in east asia and N dominate in northern asia and Uralic speakers. All we know is deep subclades R1a1a1b M417 spread out of Russia and Ukriane with Indo European languages. and R1b1a2a1a L11 originated in west Europe spread Germanic Italo Celtic languages but its fathers orignated in the mid east. After that the origin of both R1b and R1a are not as well known.

alan
09-19-2013, 11:06 PM
I dont know about that. A lot of phenotypical development has taken place since the P forking to R and Q. I understand that a lot of the typical European pigment features for example post-date that split. Several times I have read that in the upper paleolithic skulls in Eurasia didnt really fit any particular race but were intermediate. I dont mean the later use of the term cro magnon type as used for much later groups by physical anthropologists. The early cro magnons had a very distinct look with shortish broad faces and very rectangular low orbits. Many early skulls look incredibly similar. Funny enough I have heard a few comments that the reconstructed phases of the early cromagnons looks sort of half way between European and native American in features. In fact the latter are a case in point. It seems to me that they have preserved to some extent the intermediate features of the period before the full emergence of more distinct classic mongoloid and European features.

http://realhistoryww.com/world_history/ancient/images_eman/cro_magnon_3.jpg


I dont think as far back as the common haplotype P which Karafet dated to 25,000-40,000BC, that races as we know them today would have yet emerged in many areas with maybe only a few exceptions. So, I dont think the idea that haplogroup P people could be defined as mongoloid or indeed any modern race is at all likely. They were probably of an indeterminate Eurasian type and I think this applied from the west of Europe to the far east.


I think everyone needs to understand the important fact that R1 or at least R were originally Mongliod. If u see were it is placed in the human y DNa family tree. It is brother to Q dominate in native Americans and central Siberians and cousins to O dominte in east asia and N dominate in northern asia and Uralic speakers. All we know is deep subclades R1a1a1b M417 spread out of Russia and Ukriane with Indo European languages. and R1b1a2a1a L11 originated in west Europe spread Germanic Italo Celtic languages but its fathers orignated in the mid east. After that the origin of both R1b and R1a are not as well known.

Fire Haired
09-19-2013, 11:50 PM
{DELETED BY MODERATOR: LEARN TO SPELL}

Fire Haired
09-19-2013, 11:53 PM
I am not sure at all. The area they lived in seems to have been totally abandoned in the LGM and earlier Mesolithic and was probably resettled from the south. This culture only appears around 5500BC in the Atlantic optimum phase. They were pottery using sedentary fisher-hunters of a distinctive type of lifestyle. However, Anthony notes that there was a strong barrier between this culture and areas to the north due to the Kyzl Kum desert. The cultural barrier seems to have prevailed for millenia. So, I dont see it as relating to R1a or b in the northern part of its story. I dont think it fits having a relation to R1a or b.

I suspect you may be thinking of a link with M73 but I just cannot see this as possible based on the evidence there is. In general I think an east Caspian route other than one very close to the shores is unlikely in the timeframe of 9000-5000BC that I am looking at for R1a. Boats were availble from the start of that period according to the Gobustan rock carvings and of course the Caspian has fluctuated enough to make finding shorelines settlements very hard.

I think thats to recent. early Indo European R1a1a1 M417 or at least later formed into Indo European subclades is dated to about 6,000bc. and R1a it self 18,000 years old.

parasar
09-20-2013, 05:08 PM
I think everyone needs to understand the important fact that R1 or at least R were originally Mongliod. If u see were it is placed in the human y DNa family tree. It is brother to Q dominate in native Americans and central Siberians and cousins to O dominte in east asia and N dominate in northern asia and Uralic speakers. All we know is deep subclades R1a1a1b M417 spread out of Russia and Ukriane with Indo European languages. and R1b1a2a1a L11 originated in west Europe spread Germanic Italo Celtic languages but its fathers orignated in the mid east. After that the origin of both R1b and R1a are not as well known.

I think this is very doubtful for R1. By no means it is a fact. R1 is just completely absent in the Americas. As of now we have no R* samples, and very few P.

Going back to MNOPS or earlier, I would tend to agree with you. As you can see some Africans have distinct epicanthal fold. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:San_tribesman.jpg

Fire Haired
09-20-2013, 08:52 PM
I think this is very doubtful for R1. By no means it is a fact. R1 is just completely absent in the Americas. As of now we have no R* samples, and very few P.

Going back to MNOPS or earlier, I would tend to agree with you. As you can see some Africans have distinct epicanthal fold. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:San_tribesman.jpg

I do fall for the slanted eyes in some Africans big deal means nothing. Did u see my other posts were i show the human families according to globe13. Also since every haplogroup decended from K(xclt) is Mongliod except deep subclades R1a and R1b totally means R1 or R were originally Mongliod. I think u need to learn more about the human Y DNA tree.

parasar
09-21-2013, 04:33 AM
I do fall for the slanted eyes in some Africans big deal means nothing. Did u see my other posts were i show the human families according to globe13. Also since every haplogroup decended from K(xclt) is Mongliod except deep subclades R1a and R1b totally means R1 or R were originally Mongliod. I think u need to learn more about the human Y DNA tree.
I know the Y-phylogeny reasonably well but not globe13. Again if you had just limited yourself to K(x L,T) I would tend to agree with you. But I see no evidence that P, R1 or R2 were Mongoloid. My thinking (no proof, but only due to an association with mtDNA U) is that the Kostenki Markina Gora IV was P or R.

Fire Haired
09-21-2013, 04:42 AM
I know the Y-phylogeny reasonably well but not globe13. Again if you had just limited yourself to K(x L,T) I would tend to agree with you. But I see no evidence that P, R1 or R2 were Mongoloid. My thinking (no proof, but only due to an association with mtDNA U) is that the Kostenki Markina Gora IV was P or R.

If u don't think R was originally mongliod like ists brother Q and cousins O and N that doesn't make sense. Besides Y DNA R1 doe snot show any type of origin of Europeans or other Caucasians, It was raised because of spread of Indo Europeans it was random so many were mainly deep subclades.

alan
09-28-2013, 03:08 AM
I have got to repeat that the common ancestor of Q and R is P and it is incredibly old. It dates back to a time when most of the skeletons of early modern humans in Eurasia do not yet indicate the development of the distinct separate races we now known in Eurasia. Another thing is to not think Q and R are that close. They may have been separated into a couple of lines in different environments soon after their common P ancestor. That could be a gap of up to 10-20 thousand years given that R and Q are much younger than their common P ancestor. So, its misleading to think of them as very closely connected. The connection could be very distant indeed.

One crucial thing to recall is the positions of R*, r1*, R2 etc strongly suggests that R* retreated south from the eastern side of the Caspian during the glacial maximum c. 25000BC, with R1* probably happening among those who had retreated to the south Caspian shore and R2 occurring with those who were on a trail even further south towards India. So, R peoples were not effected by the same environments as there distant Q cousins who seem to have headed east and experienced far more brutal conditions in this period, ultimately arriving in America.

So not only had these lineage not shared an ancestor since Mr P many millenia before but they had very different environmental experiences during the glacial maximum c. 25000-17000BC. That period may have seen the Q groups racially develop differently due to environment and also mix with rather different other people on their trail towards America. It is interesting too that native Americans only seem to have some of the classic oriental traits as if the process of evolving those traits in Asia was only partly under way before they crossed to America c. 11-8 thousand BC.






If u don't think R was originally mongliod like ists brother Q and cousins O and N that doesn't make sense. Besides Y DNA R1 doe snot show any type of origin of Europeans or other Caucasians, It was raised because of spread of Indo Europeans it was random so many were mainly deep subclades.

AJL
09-28-2013, 03:43 AM
This analysis of genetic diversity in a fish species of the Caspian and Black seas

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18261049

also suggests interesting possibilities for a similar human situation: mainly isolated set of populations in both place but with steady if modest trickles of contact over prolonged periods.

(A portion of our ancestors may very well have followed such fish for food.)

newtoboard
09-29-2013, 12:22 PM
Don't some people consider Q to be West Eurasian? Its diversity seems to be in West Asia and South Asia. I also have heard the theory of an origin of P in South or Central Asia. No need to assume any of these are East Eurasian.

alan
09-29-2013, 01:47 PM
That is a fair point. P may have orignated in south-west Asia up to 40000 years ago and the ancestors of R and Q may have spread north into the north of west-central Asia. Early R and Q may have then been pushed down from north west central Asia to points south soon after they came into existence. There is little doubt that they did not posses an east Asian phenotype at that point in time. If P and Q parted company 22000 years ago and then some of Q spent the next 10000 years passing through Asia towards America, it doesnt seem remotely safe to try and imply original phenotype of R based on Q east Asians and native Americans. It seems overwhelmingly likely that climate and mixing with earlier non-Q population elements in eastern Asia was when Q developed some of its east Asian traits before passing to the Americas. Indeed, north-west native Americans only have some of the classic east Asian traits and possess a number of more west Eurasian ones too like large noses, deep set eyes, large body size, sometimes wavy hair etc. IMO, they look exactly like what you would expect from a Palaeolithic group from west-central Asia that had headed through east Eurasia for 10000 years.

I have always had a big soft spot for native Americans. I visited the east band of the Cherokees reservation once. I like the idea that they are very distant relatives who parted company with us R folk during the worst of the Ice Age. However, the parting from P was a heck of a long time age, maybe up to 40000 years ago and then probably a bigger geographical parting started over 20-odd thousand years ago. So, its not too surprising that we do not look similar now.




Don't some people consider Q to be West Eurasian? Its diversity seems to be in West Asia and South Asia. I also have heard the theory of an origin of P in South or Central Asia. No need to assume any of these are East Eurasian.

AJL
09-29-2013, 04:17 PM
That is a fair point. P may have orignated in south-west Asia up to 40000 years ago and the ancestors of R and Q may have spread north into the north of west-central Asia.

Something similar may be true too of mtDNA X, which IIRC has high diversity among Druze, but a spread across Eurasia, North Africa, and North America.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b2/Haplogroup_X_%28mtDNA%29.PNG

Palisto
10-16-2013, 07:43 AM
Well Wiki drawing on underhill says

[I]Only isolated samples of the new paragroup R-M420* were found by Underhill 2009, mostly in the Middle East and Caucasus: 1/121 Omanis, 2/150 Iranians, 1/164 in the United Arab Emirates, and 3/612 in Turkey. Testing of 7224 more males in 73 other Eurasian populations showed no sign of this category.(Underhill 2009)

So, there is some parallel with these R1a paragroups and the R1b early paragroups as well as R1*. I find it odd that this tends not to be discussed in relation to R1a but does for R1b. The phenomena are similar. So it is likely the explanation is too.

A recently tested Yezidi Kurd turned out to be R-M420* (=R1a* (L62+, L63+, SRY10831.2-, M17-)).
http://kurdishdna.blogspot.com/2013/10/r1a-discovered-among-yezidi-kurd.html

Rathna
10-16-2013, 08:21 AM
A recently tested Yezidi Kurd turned out to be R-M420* (=R1a* (L62+, L63+, SRY10831.2-, M17-)).
http://kurdishdna.blogspot.com/2013/10/r1a-discovered-among-yezidi-kurd.html

It would be interesting to know the STRs values of this R1a*. So far we have only Western European samples (the Isles, Germany, Italy) which belong probably to the same haplotype. It is becoming clear more and more that many haplogroups have only one line survived and diffused recently: see R-M269*, R-L51*, etc.

Palisto
10-16-2013, 02:31 PM
It would be interesting to know the STRs values of this R1a*. So far we have only Western European samples (the Isles, Germany, Italy) which belong probably to the same haplotype. It is becoming clear more and more that many haplogroups have only one line survived and diffused recently: see R-M269*, R-L51*, etc.

STR values were not tested. I don't know of any European R1a samples that are true R1a* based on ISOGG 2013, i.e. M420+ (or L62+, or L63+) and SRY10831.2- (or SRY1532.2-), M17- (or M198-).
http://www.isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_HapgrpR.html

Rathna
10-16-2013, 02:45 PM
STR values were not tested. I don't know of any European R1a samples that are true R1a* based on ISOGG 2013, i.e. M420+ (or L62+, or L63+) and SRY10831.2- (or SRY1532.2-), M17- (or M198-).
http://www.isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_HapgrpR.html

Family Tree DNA - R1a* Haplogroup Project is plenty of Western European R1a/M420*.

Palisto
10-16-2013, 02:48 PM
Family Tree DNA - R1a* Haplogroup Project is plenty of Western European R1a/M420*.

Can you provide a link and/or the FTDNA IDs of the individuals you are talking about?

Rathna
10-16-2013, 03:09 PM
If you go on Google and write "Family Tree DNA -R1a* Haplogroup Project" you will get easily a link.

These are three haplotypes of the Western European R1a* (two tested for 111 markers and one for 67). Pickering is demonstrated R1a* already from the "Adriano Squecco spreadsheet".

265982 FERNANDES Unknown Origin R1a
13 24 14 11 12-12 12 12 12 13 13 29 20 9-9 11 11 24 14 20 30 12-13-15-15 11 12 19-22 15 16 18 16 33-40 13 11 11 8 15-16 8 12 11 8 12 11 12 22-22 15 10 12 12 15 8 14 24 21 13 12 11 12 11 11 12 12 36 14 9 15 12 28 26 19 12 12 12 12 10 9 12 11 10 11 11 30 13 15 24 13 11 10 20 16 18 14 23 15 13 15 26 13 26 18 10 15 17 9 11 11
140814 Yeager Germany R1
14 23 15 10 12-12 12 12 12 13 13 29 15 9-9 11 12 25 15 20 31 11-12-15-16 11 10 19-23 15 16 16 18 36-37 12 12 9 8 15-16 8 11 10 8 11 11 12 20-20 16 11 12 12 15 8 12 22 21 13 12 11 13 11 11 12 12 35 15 9 15 12 28 24 19 12 12 12 12 10 9 13 11 10 11 11 30 12 12 24 13 11 9 18 15 18 16 23 15 11 16 25 12 24 19 10 15 18 9 11 11
99660 Pickering England R1
13 24 14 10 12-12 12 12 12 13 13 29 21 9-9 11 11 24 14 20 31 12-13-15-16 11 11 19-22 15 16 18 16 33-40 12 11 11 8 15-16 8 12 11 8 12 11 12 22-22 15 10 12 12 14 8 14 24 21 13 12 11 12 11 11 12 12

AJL
10-16-2013, 03:26 PM
Fernandes lists an unknown origin, and this is a surname that is encountered as far from Western Europe as Goa and Sri Lanka (besides being a common Sephardi name), so I would not make too much of that particular example.

Rathna
10-16-2013, 03:39 PM
Fernandes lists an unknown origin, and this is a surname that is encountered as far from Western Europe as Goa and Sri Lanka (besides being a common Sephardi name), so I would not make too much of that particular example.

Fernandes said that this wasn't his true surname and that he was born from an Englishman. His haplotype is linked to the haplotypes of the Isles and I think that they have nothing to do with Jews. No R1a* has appeared so far amongst Jews, nor amongst Indians, who believe to be at the origin of this haplogroup. We know some samples in Iran and nearby, but we haven't their STRs values. For this I think it would be interesting to test this Kurd, perhaps by a subscription.
I have paid many tests, the last a Geno 2.0 for Fabrizio Federighi, a Tuscan R-M269* with DYS462=12. There is also an Italian R1a*, from the mountainous region of Abruzzi. Perhaps you know that my hypothesis is that R1a* was born in the Alpine zone during the Younger Dryas. Next tests will say.

BMG
10-16-2013, 03:41 PM
If you go on Google and write "Family Tree DNA -R1a* Haplogroup Project" you will get easily a link.

These are three haplotypes of the Western European R1a* (two tested for 111 markers and one for 67). Pickering is demonstrated R1a* already from the "Adriano Squecco spreadsheet".

265982 FERNANDES Unknown Origin R1a
13 24 14 11 12-12 12 12 12 13 13 29 20 9-9 11 11 24 14 20 30 12-13-15-15 11 12 19-22 15 16 18 16 33-40 13 11 11 8 15-16 8 12 11 8 12 11 12 22-22 15 10 12 12 15 8 14 24 21 13 12 11 12 11 11 12 12 36 14 9 15 12 28 26 19 12 12 12 12 10 9 12 11 10 11 11 30 13 15 24 13 11 10 20 16 18 14 23 15 13 15 26 13 26 18 10 15 17 9 11 11
140814 Yeager Germany R1
14 23 15 10 12-12 12 12 12 13 13 29 15 9-9 11 12 25 15 20 31 11-12-15-16 11 10 19-23 15 16 16 18 36-37 12 12 9 8 15-16 8 11 10 8 11 11 12 20-20 16 11 12 12 15 8 12 22 21 13 12 11 13 11 11 12 12 35 15 9 15 12 28 24 19 12 12 12 12 10 9 13 11 10 11 11 30 12 12 24 13 11 9 18 15 18 16 23 15 11 16 25 12 24 19 10 15 18 9 11 11
99660 Pickering England R1
13 24 14 10 12-12 12 12 12 13 13 29 21 9-9 11 11 24 14 20 31 12-13-15-16 11 11 19-22 15 16 18 16 33-40 12 11 11 8 15-16 8 12 11 8 12 11 12 22-22 15 10 12 12 14 8 14 24 21 13 12 11 12 11 11 12 12

All these three tested M420+ M17- ?

Rathna
10-16-2013, 04:02 PM
[QUOTE=BMG;16421]All these three tested M420+ M17- ?[/QUOTE

219391 Forbes R1a R-M420
M173+, M420+, L175-, L23-, L260-, M157.1-, M198-, M269-, M334-, M343-, M417-, M434-, P312-, SRY10831.2-, U106-
265982 FERNANDES R1a R-M420
M173+, M420+, M343-, SRY10831.2-

If you look at these two samples, you can see that they are R-M420*.

parasar
10-16-2013, 05:34 PM
Fernandes said that this wasn't his true surname and that he was born from an Englishman. His haplotype is linked to the haplotypes of the Isles and I think that they have nothing to do with Jews. No R1a* has appeared so far amongst Jews, nor amongst Indians, who believe to be at the origin of this haplogroup. We know some samples in Iran and nearby, but we haven't their STRs values. For this I think it would be interesting to test this Kurd, perhaps by a subscription.
I have paid many tests, the last a Geno 2.0 for Fabrizio Federighi, a Tuscan R-M269* with DYS462=12. There is also an Italian R1a*, from the mountainous region of Abruzzi. Perhaps you know that my hypothesis is that R1a* was born in the Alpine zone during the Younger Dryas. Next tests will say.

I still think it was present further northwest even earlier - in Northern France, British Isles, and moved south east during the LGM. Otherwise it difficult to explain the Z93*, L664, M417-, M420*, Z283+ Z282-, Z283+ Z282+ M458- Z280- Z284-, and CTS4385* found in British samples. They are from the LGM edge zone in north-western Europe.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3d/LGM-Mangerud-2003.jpg

Rathna
10-16-2013, 07:28 PM
I still think it was present further northwest even earlier - in Northern France, British Isles, and moved south east during the LGM. Otherwise it difficult to explain the Z93*, L664, M417-, M420*, Z283+ Z282-, Z283+ Z282+ M458- Z280- Z284-, and CTS4385* found in British samples. They are from the LGM edge zone in north-western Europe.


I have declared many times that if someone demonstrated that the Refugium was in the Isles I wouldn’t have been surprised, but the Isles are over represented as to other places in Europe and many indications are, I think, in favour of my hypothesis: for instance my mtDNA K1a1b1e is clear that is born in Italy and diffused later to the Isles where the mutation 477C arose. But this could be a later migration. Anyway I am open to every solution.

BMG
10-17-2013, 02:33 AM
If All those L566 results from geno 2.0 is actually M17- we have more geographical spread .
Out of 7 people shared the results
4 are americans with european ancestry
1 malaysian
1 indian
1 filipino

Palisto
10-17-2013, 06:32 AM
If you go on Google and write "Family Tree DNA -R1a* Haplogroup Project" you will get easily a link.
Try it out yourself, you will see that your recommendation does not work well.



These are three haplotypes of the Western European R1a* (two tested for 111 markers and one for 67). Pickering is demonstrated R1a* already from the "Adriano Squecco spreadsheet".

265982 FERNANDES Unknown Origin R1a
13 24 14 11 12-12 12 12 12 13 13 29 20 9-9 11 11 24 14 20 30 12-13-15-15 11 12 19-22 15 16 18 16 33-40 13 11 11 8 15-16 8 12 11 8 12 11 12 22-22 15 10 12 12 15 8 14 24 21 13 12 11 12 11 11 12 12 36 14 9 15 12 28 26 19 12 12 12 12 10 9 12 11 10 11 11 30 13 15 24 13 11 10 20 16 18 14 23 15 13 15 26 13 26 18 10 15 17 9 11 11
140814 Yeager Germany R1
14 23 15 10 12-12 12 12 12 13 13 29 15 9-9 11 12 25 15 20 31 11-12-15-16 11 10 19-23 15 16 16 18 36-37 12 12 9 8 15-16 8 11 10 8 11 11 12 20-20 16 11 12 12 15 8 12 22 21 13 12 11 13 11 11 12 12 35 15 9 15 12 28 24 19 12 12 12 12 10 9 13 11 10 11 11 30 12 12 24 13 11 9 18 15 18 16 23 15 11 16 25 12 24 19 10 15 18 9 11 11
99660 Pickering England R1
13 24 14 10 12-12 12 12 12 13 13 29 21 9-9 11 11 24 14 20 31 12-13-15-16 11 11 19-22 15 16 18 16 33-40 12 11 11 8 15-16 8 12 11 8 12 11 12 22-22 15 10 12 12 14 8 14 24 21 13 12 11 12 11 11 12 12

140814 Yeager Germany R1 is not a confirmed R1a*; M420 or L62 or L63 were not tested. He is R1 or R1a.
99660 Pickering England R1 is not a confirmed R1a*; M420 or L62 or L63 were not tested. He is R1 or R1a.



All these three tested M420+ M17- ?

219391 Forbes R1a R-M420
M173+, M420+, L175-, L23-, L260-, M157.1-, M198-, M269-, M334-, M343-, M417-, M434-, P312-, SRY10831.2-, U106-
265982 FERNANDES R1a R-M420
M173+, M420+, M343-, SRY10831.2-

If you look at these two samples, you can see that they are R-M420*.
These are the only two confirmed R1a* cases at FTDNA. We have now one Kurdish Yezidi confirmed case of R1a*. As Alan already mentioned: 1/121 Omanis, 2/150 Iranians, 1/164 in the United Arab Emirates, and 3/612 in Turkey. Testing of 7224 more males in 73 other Eurasian populations showed no sign of this category.(Underhill 2009) I agree that the STR values in the R1a* project suggest that there are more cases of R1a*.
http://www.familytreedna.com/public/R1asterisk/default.aspx?section=yresults
There are 2-3 Clusters of R1a* in Europe.
1. The "Forbes" cluster with 15 individuals (founder effect?)
2. The "Fernandes" cluster with only 1 individual
(3. The "Yeager" cluster with 3 individuals (very recent founder effect); not confirmed R1a*)


It would be interesting to know the STRs values of this R1a*. So far we have only Western European samples (the Isles, Germany, Italy) which belong probably to the same haplotype. It is becoming clear more and more that many haplogroups have only one line survived and diffused recently: see R-M269*, R-L51*, etc.

STR values of the Kurdish R1a* would be indeed interesting.


If All those L566 results from geno 2.0 is actually M17- we have more geographical spread .
Out of 7 people shared the results
4 are americans with european ancestry
1 malaysian
1 indian
1 filipino

Can you give more information?

Rathna
10-17-2013, 07:15 AM
@ Palisto

Between Fernandes (I choose him only because he has been tested for 111 markers) and Yeager I counted 71 mutations out of 111. Even calculating with the usual method (not the Zhivitovsky one) we have at least 4500 years to the MRCA. This demonstrates that R1a* in Europe is present from many thousands of years.
We are waiting to test this Kurd. If you promote a subscription by your FTDNA project, I'll contribute.

Palisto
10-17-2013, 07:41 AM
@ Palisto

Between Fernandes (I choose him only because he has been tested for 111 markers) and Yeager I counted 71 mutations out of 111. Even calculating with the usual method (not the Zhivitovsky one) we have at least 4500 years to the MRCA. This demonstrates that R1a* in Europe is present from many thousands of years.

This demonstrates that the ancestry of Fernandes and Yeager (BTW, we still don't know if Yeager is R1 or R1a) split many thousand years ago but it does not say in what geographic region the split occurred.



We are waiting to test this Kurd. If you promote a subscription by your FTDNA project, I'll contribute.
Not sure if he is interested in further genetic testing. I will ask him.

Rathna
10-17-2013, 07:59 AM
@ Palisto

This last paper whose Dienekes speaks:
arXiv:1310.3897v1 [q-bio.PE]
Y Chromosomes of 40% Chinese Are Descendants of Three Neolithic Super-grandfathers
Shi Yan et al.
hypothesized that R1a expanded 8-5,000YBP from Central Asia (to-day Kazakhstan) and R1b had migrated to Western Europe (and the Alpine Region was a land of transit) between 19,000 and 8,000YBP. I think that this could be a solution, which could be in line with my theory of the "Italian Refugium" during the Younger Dryas. It would disprove also a Refugium in the Alpine Region of R1a. We could prove this just by testing your Kurd or also this Arab who seems just a R1a* with a following mutation in Z1866:

1821 R1a–1 Z1866
R [1/1]
1822 N114240 (Morley's tree).

Rathna
10-17-2013, 08:11 AM
Palisto writes: "140814 Yeager Germany R1 is not a confirmed R1a*; M420 or L62 or L63 were not tested. He is R1 or R1a."

93721 Yeager R1 R-M173 M173+, M343-, SRY10831.2-
by these SNPs tested Yeager couldn't be that R1a*. Anyway a Geno 2.0 should be done.

Palisto
10-18-2013, 08:37 AM
@ Palisto

This last paper whose Dienekes speaks:
arXiv:1310.3897v1 [q-bio.PE]
Y Chromosomes of 40% Chinese Are Descendants of Three Neolithic Super-grandfathers
Shi Yan et al.
hypothesized that R1a expanded 8-5,000YBP from Central Asia (to-day Kazakhstan) and R1b had migrated to Western Europe (and the Alpine Region was a land of transit) between 19,000 and 8,000YBP. I think that this could be a solution, which could be in line with my theory of the "Italian Refugium" during the Younger Dryas. It would disprove also a Refugium in the Alpine Region of R1a. We could prove this just by testing your Kurd or also this Arab who seems just a R1a* with a following mutation in Z1866:

1821 R1a–1 Z1866
R [1/1]
1822 N114240 (Morley's tree).

What do think to achieve by testing for Z1866? AFAIK N114240 is the only R1a with Z1866, Z1866 is just a private SNP.

Rathna
10-18-2013, 10:03 AM
What do think to achieve by testing for Z1866? AFAIK N114240 is the only R1a with Z1866, Z1866 is just a private SNP.

Yes, and this demonstrates that he is a true R1a* and could be interesting to have his STRs values to compare with the European ones.

BMG
10-19-2013, 04:38 PM
Can you give more information?
I am talking about people who got their terminal SNP as R-L566 .L566 probably is above M17 but i am not sure . i can only share what they have already shared

R-L566 Bettiev I had my father's nephew take the test so that I could learn about my paternal line. I became interested in genealogy when my father took me to lunch to meet a cousin and her daughter. During the course of lunch the daughter looked at me and commented, "I just figured out that they haven't seen each other in 48 years!" I immediately thought, "Someone needs to be getting this information saved." On my way home I called our city library and spoke with the genealogy librarian asking where I should get started. The rest is history
R-L566 rootsroost I’ve traced the Root surname back to my 9th great grandfather, a Thomas Routtes, born in France in 1555. A Huguenot, he fled the Catholic slaughters, moving to London in 1598 with his three sons. He settled in Badby, England, where they changed the spelling from Routtes to Roote (both pronounced roo-tay). In 1600 his son John married Ann Russell, daughter of the 3rd Earl of Bedford. Their son Thomas, my 7th g-grandfather, emigrated to Hartford CN in 1637. Three consecutive Jacob’s continued the line, the last one changing the name to Root. Jacob III’s son Asahel was a Revolutionary War veteran, having enlisted 5-times. Durations were 5-months and 3-weeks. He fought under Geo Washington in the Battle of White Plains. His son Israel fought in the War of 1812. His son John, my great grandfather, left New York for the Midwest, marrying in Iowa in 1857. John died in 1897 from dysentery complications acquired while a soldier in the Union Army. John claimed on of his 2nd great grandmothers was a full-blooded Mohawk Indian. His brother, Augustus, died at the Battle of Appomatox Station within a day of Lee's surrender. John’s youngest son Robert was my grandfather. In 1902 he and his bride moved from Missouri to Oregon and SW Washington. In 1912 the family embarked on a 3-month long covered wagon trip to Eugene Oregon where my father was born in 1914.
R-L566 Hgovind Dad remains more of an enigma. He, like his dad before him, was tall (6'), about 6" taller than the local populace in Mysore, South India. Fair of skin, and hereditary land owners for generations, the men in the family always stood out from most locals. These test results ask more questions than they answer. Especially when this particular marker was found to be more prevalent in Tajikistan and Iran than any other part of the world!
R-L566 Oscar28 I am 6th gen male Lewis. Searching lineage of Charles Edward Lewis in Virginia bef1780-abt1830.and Asa Lee b1778 Virginia. Also looking for Morton and Love family connections from North Carolina. Other surnames are Todd Bascom Fyock Wright
R-L566 wyreutm I am from Malaysia. I have no idea how I have this kind of haplogroup; R1a1a / M17. I don't look European, just like mixture from Malays, Pakistani and Middle East. And how my ancestor come here in Malaysia also make me puzzled.
R-L566 Jdedicatoria My father is Filipino from Botolon, Zambalese. Surnames Dedicatoria & Dante.
R-L566 wcale Father from Northeast, NC. Name Cale originally felt to be Anglicized French, but now better evidence, English. Felt to have native American heritage, but in question. Family from Bertie County, NC, the Pell Mell

cmorley
10-19-2013, 05:17 PM
I am talking about people who got their terminal SNP as R-L566 .L566 probably is above M17 but i am not sure . i can only share what they have already shared

I suspect that some of these -- if not all -- should actually be classified as haplogroup F.

Possibly related to this issue: there seems to be a mix-up with the FTDNA-transferred calls for L566. Of all the Geno results in my collection, only one has not been scored L566+.

I reported all this -- directly to the Genographic project management -- at the start of the month.

BMG
10-19-2013, 06:27 PM
I suspect that some of these -- if not all -- should actually be classified as haplogroup F.

Possibly related to this issue: there seems to be a mix-up with the FTDNA-transferred calls for L566. Of all the Geno results in my collection, only one has not been scored L566+.

I reported all this -- directly to the Genographic project management -- at the start of the month.

Dont they test for downstream markers to F to make sure the sample belong to haplogroup R ?

Timothy
10-21-2013, 09:14 AM
Fernandes said that this wasn't his true surname and that he was born from an Englishman. His haplotype is linked to the haplotypes of the Isles .......

I know Fernandes, I'm his DNA mentor, convinced him to STR test in the first place, and to test M420 later. He was shocked by his results. His paper trail assumption was that his paternal line would be Portuguese, through his Fernandes ancestor, traced back to late 1700's England. Couldn't believe he wasn't matching Portuguese, is at a total loss to explain why he's matching the Isles group, except to postulate a NPE result somewhere along his paternal line.

parasar
11-05-2015, 05:43 PM
Fully agree about the "last" past.

Regarding the "only," true, Underhill's was excellent, but I still wish for more analysis like Passarino's - http://www.historycy.org/index.php?act=Attach&type=post&id=4537 - even though IMO his North of Black Sea origin theory for M17 still remains unproven.

Reviving this thread just to say - kudos to Passarino!
While place of origin M17 may still be in dispute, M417 is another matter - the Ukraine is definitely looking possible for M417.

New Results
Eight thousand years of natural selection in Europe
"Further evidence for a connection between the Srubnaya and populations of central/south Asia—which is absent in ancient central Europeans including people of the Corded Ware culture and is nearly absent in present-day Europeans23—is provided by the occurrence in four Srubnaya and one Poltavka males of haplogroup R1a-Z93 which is common in present-day central/south Asians and Bronze Age people from the Altai24 (Supplementary Data Table 1). This represents a direct link between the European steppe and central/south Asia, an intriguing observation that may be related to the spread of Indo-European languages in that direction.


...The Yamnaya from Samara and Kalmykia, the Afanasievo people from the Altai (3300-3000 BCE), and the Poltavka Middle Bronze Age (2900-2200 BCE) population that followed the Yamnaya in Samara, are all genetically homogeneous, forming a tight “Bronze Age steppe” cluster ...

... After the Poltavka period, population change occurred in Samara: the Late Bronze Age Srubnaya have 88 ~17% Anatolian Neolithic or EEF ancestry...

Srubnaya also harbored such ancestry indicates that the Anatolian Neolithic or EEF ancestry could have come into the steppe from a more eastern source ... Srubnaya possess exclusively (n=6) R1a Y chromosomes (Extended Data Table 1), and four of them (and one Poltavka male) belonged to haplogroup R1a-Z93 which is common in central/south Asians, very rare in present-day Europeans, and absent in all ancient central Europeans studied to date ..."

Samples' Ages:
Poltavka 4.9-4.7 kya
Srubnaya 3.9-3.6 kya

Per YFull:
Age of Z93: 5000 kya
Age of Z2124: 4800 kya
Age of Y40: 4800 kya
Age of M780: 4800 kya

Analysis of splits:
Y3/F2597/M727 * M605 * L657/S347*Y26/M780*Y2/M723*Y13*V1981/Y27/M634

Age of my ancestral line Y9 3900 kya

The sequence:

Z94-M780(xV1981/Y27/M634)-B163 Cossack, Zaporozhie, Ukraine

M634xL657/S347 Tajik, Ishkasim

L657-Y9/V4070 South Asia

L657xY9 South Asia

362 GS000035239-ASM Cosk2 Cossacks R1a2b
363 GS000016189-ASM Ishk1 Ishkasim R1a2b
364 GS000016808-ASM OrMc1 Odisha R1a2b
365 GS000016966-ASM Kurmi1 Kurmi R1a2b
366 GS000016799-ASM Gupta1 Gupta R1a2b

Using 0.74x10-9 mutations/base/year mutation rate
12 P 1.00 48,142 46,813 49,445 36,465 58,079
13 P1 1.00 35,282 33,662 36,917 26,221 43,362
14 R 1.00 28,891 27,240 30,540 21,219 35,873
15 R1 1.00 23,729 22,151 25,314 17,255 29,734
16 R1a 1.00 5,884 5,418 6,592 4,220 7,743
17 R1a2 1.00 5,556 5,132 6,240 3,997 7,330
23 R1a2a 1.00 4,339 3,570 5,036 2,781 5,915

243.4 years/SNP

Approximate ages
M780 ~4582 years
M634 ~4339 years
L657 ~ 3852 years very close now to the TMRCA of 3900 ybp calculated by YFull
Y9 ~ 3600 years

Based on the above a reasonable argument can be made that my L657 Y9 line descended from the Z93 in either Poltavka or Srubnaya.

O.N. Trubachev's and Paul Kretschmer's theories on maeotim temarundam matrem maris look sound.

From my old notes posted at DNA Forums:


But someone must have introduced them to India since, if I am not mistaken, the earliest burial mounds in modern Nepal-India border region date to circa 1000-800bc while the mounds of steppes are much older. No early mound is present in western India. But in eastern India they are numerous – generally known by the word ‘dih.’

This has lead me to believe that the culture of the eastern India was initially slightly different (of the Vratya form), but over time the Vratya and Vedic merged.

On Azov, these may interest you – Jajlenko, V.P., The Indoaryans – the Cimmerians – the Taurians
“An ancient toponymy of the Inner Crimea includes a group of the unexplained place names – Parosta, Postigia, Badation, Caliord- (from the ethnic name Caliordi), Tabana, Dandaka, Argoda, Coretus, Lagyra. These place names belong to the territory of the old Taurians. The author supposes an Indoaryan origin of the place names – they find an explanation from the Sanscrit vocabulary. The comparison of the Greek forms of this place names with possible their Sanscrit sources shows the following correlation of the Indoaryan aspirate obstruent consonants and the Greek unaspirate: th – t,dh – d, gh – g. A Sanscrit nature of the above-mentioned place names shows that an old point of view of K.Ritter on the Taurians as a part of the Cimmerians is true because the eminent Russian linguist O.Trubachev has argued an Indoaryan origin of the Cimmerians.”
And
Ways of Indo-Aryan Migrations by Cyril Babaev
The first to suggest the hypothesis of Indo-Aryan presence in the region north and east to the Black Sea was Paul Kretschmer; in his work Inder am Kuban (Wien, 1944) he managed to gather several facts and historical evidence to state that tribes mentioned by Herodot, namely Sindes and Maeotes, were Indic by origin. Kretschmer noticed just a few etymologies which he thought were Indo-Aryan, but he even did not pay attention to hundreds of glosses
Another large discovery was a series of articles issued in Russian, American and German journals between 1975 and 1989 by Oleg Trubachov, who first managed to gather large range of data from Pontic districts and the Caucasus and to state that the language of people who used to live there were Indo-Aryan by origin. The book by Trubachov combining all his previous articles was called Indoarica in the North Black Sea region and was published in Moscow in 1999 (“Nauka”).
It seems now that Indo-Aryans used to inhabit lands along the Black Sea shores even in Herodot’s times: the tribes he mentions in his “Historia”, Sindes and Maeotes, are separated out from Scythians as a different nation: they were involved in agriculture and cattle-breeding, and occupied the fertile region on both sides of the Don river (then called Tanais), lived also along the Kuban river and at the foot of the Caucasus.
Herodot uses in most cases the form Indoi, which he must have heard from Scythians in Greek polises on the Black Sea shores, while many other sources (like Strabo, Dionysius, Stephen Byzantine, Polienus etc.) use Sindoi or Sindi, Sindones, the form they could probably hear on the spot. Another interesting gloss is the Hesychius’s dictionary which gives the following: Sindoi ethnos Indikon.
The very Tanais is called Sinu- by Scythians, and Maeotida [i.e. the Azov Sea] is called Temarunda, which means ‘mother of the sea’.”
[Please note, that Snorri brings Odin from the Tanais/Azov region].


Location of (M780 sample) Zaporozhie, Ukraine - 47.8 35.2

homosapien
05-03-2017, 06:05 PM
The title of this thread was very applicable to what I am observing in my case, so reviving this old thread.

I am positive for Page7+ and negative for M17- what would that mean? I thought everyone with Page7+ should be positive for M17 as well ?

Thanks.

Michał
05-03-2017, 06:46 PM
I am positive for Page7+ and negative for M17- what would that mean? I thought everyone with Page7+ should be positive for M17 as well ?

M17 is an INDEL, and INDELs frequently give false negative or false positive results in tests using the chip-based technology.

parasar
05-19-2017, 03:31 PM
The title of this thread was very applicable to what I am observing in my case, so reviving this old thread.

I am positive for Page7+ and negative for M17- what would that mean? I thought everyone with Page7+ should be positive for M17 as well ?

Thanks.

How did you figure out that you are M17-?
M17 is a 4G>3G deletion so was it reported as M17- in that sense?

lgmayka
05-19-2017, 06:49 PM
M17 is an INDEL, and INDELs frequently give false negative or false positive results in tests using the chip-based technology.
In the R1a group on YFull, many research samples are shown as M198+ M17- .

More disturbing is that two regular customers, YF08005 and YF08516, are shown as M198+ M17- .
YF08005 is actually R-YP5842 (https://yfull.com/tree/R-YP5842/)
YF08516 is actually R-YP6009 (https://yfull.com/tree/R-YP6009/)

Amerijoe
05-19-2017, 07:05 PM
In the R1a group on YFull, many research samples are shown as M198+ M17- .

More disturbing is that two regular customers, YF08005 and YF08516, are shown as M198+ M17- .
YF08005 is actually R-YP5842 (https://yfull.com/tree/R-YP5842/)
YF08516 is actually R-YP6009 (https://yfull.com/tree/R-YP6009/)

Lawrence, disturbed not so much. Confused, quite often. :) Joe YF08005

Michał
05-19-2017, 10:43 PM
In the R1a group on YFull, many research samples are shown as M198+ M17- .

More disturbing is that two regular customers, YF08005 and YF08516, are shown as M198+ M17- .
YF08005 is actually R-YP5842 (https://yfull.com/tree/R-YP5842/)
YF08516 is actually R-YP6009 (https://yfull.com/tree/R-YP6009/)
It seems that this is simply caused by some problems with the proper alignment of the shorter/mutated (3G) sequence. In some cases a "heterozygous" result for a deletion in a particular locus within the 4G sequence is reported, although I am not sure whether this is indeed a coexistence of 4G and 3G sequences or rather a result of different alignments for the 3G sequence in particular reads.

You can see it using the Y-browser tool in the R1a group at YFull (when viewing all neighboring positions at once, for example 21733162, 21733163, 21733164, 21733165, 21733166, 21733167, 21733168, 21733169, 21733170).

homosapien
05-20-2017, 01:27 AM
How did you figure out that you are M17-?
M17 is a 4G>3G deletion so was it reported as M17- in that sense?

The rs for M17 shows a deletion like you mentioned.

TXLNG2P rs3908 21733168 — or G —

The haplogroup predictors show M17 as negative for that deletion.

I do not know what is the 4G>3G deletion. What would a deletion mean?

The M17- and a peculiar M458- (which means the 23andme guys only hit this SNP under M-417, without genotyping Z93 and Z283).

I am also waiting for the Z93 panel, then should know my branch.

homosapien
05-20-2017, 02:13 AM
I did think about some recessive disease causing deletion, but curiously

RS3909 which would be R1b1c1 (M18) also shows a deletion and I am R1a, so this deletion is equivalent to negative or something else?

TXLNG2P rs3909 21733163 — or AA —

Amerijoe
05-20-2017, 12:34 PM
M17 is an INDEL, and INDELs frequently give false negative or false positive results in tests using the chip-based technology.

Michal, is this what you mean?

1618216183

YF08005 is BigY, YF08276 is Y Elite

homosapien
05-20-2017, 05:33 PM
Lawrence, disturbed not so much. Confused, quite often. :) Joe YF08005

Well it is obvious my knowledge on this is extremely low. Dont even know what makes it disturbing or confusing, is there something I can read to get up to speed on this?

Only thing I was able to find was this quote which looks pretty dated with todays phylogeny of the R1a tree.


The widespread Eurasian distribution zone of haplogroup
R1a has been mapped for over a decade8,10,12,13 since the first
reports that the M17 deletion grouped Y-chromosomes into a
monophyletic clade that exceeded 30% frequency in some Asian
populations14 and over 50% in Eastern Europe15. Several single
nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) phylogenetically equivalent to
M17, such as M198, are now known16. Nonetheless, the internal
structure of the R1a haplogroup has long resisted fractionation
until the recent separation of its post-glacial European and Asian
coancestry was partially achieved with the discovery of the M458
SNP.
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms3928

vettor
05-20-2017, 06:30 PM
Correct me if I am wrong............but is it not the system that a SNP negative is older than the same SNP which is positive?

This is what I was told for all SNP

Michał
05-20-2017, 06:30 PM
Michal, is this what you mean?

No, what I meant in my initial post was related to the chip-based tests only (like 23andMe or Geno2) where the oligonucleotide probes that are supposed to specifically recognize the complementary sequence are not always able to consistently differentiate between the mutated and non-mutated sequence. This is especially true for mutations in which a relatively long track of a repeated motif is either slightly shortened or elongated, so it might also be the case for M17 where one of the four consecutive G residues is deleted (so we have 3G instead of 4G).

The problem with the interpretation of the NGS results by YFull is of slightly different kind. Firstly, there is no way we can figure out which of the four consecutive G nucleotides is deleted in M17, so assigning this mutation (deletion) to a specific nucleotide position is a matter of convention. Secondly, it is not easy to produce an algorithm that will always assign a missing nucleotide (ie. a deletion) to the same position within the larger tract of mononucleotide repeats (as this also depends on a number of additional factors). Thirdly, the 4G/3G mononucleotide repeated sequence is followed by another sequence of this kind (7T), which additionally contributes to the problems with the automatic alignment of mutated (deleted) sequence.

Let's take a look at the YFull results for your sample YF08005. The non-mutated 4G sequence is positioned at 21733165-21733168, so here are your calls for these four positions:
21733165 43G
21733166 12G 32DEL
21733167 44G
21733168 6T 37G

It seems obvious that you have a deletion associated with M17, although this deletion is not consistently assigned to just one position within the 21733165-21733168 sequence. In most cases, this deletion is assigned to position 21733166. However, in some cases, the adjacent 7T tract is "shifted" towards the shortened 4G/3G sequence, so the deletion "disappears", while the first nucleotide of the 7T tract is assigned to a position that was previously occupied by the last nucleotide in the 4G tract. It is also possible that some reads either start with the 3G sequence or end with it, so in all such cases the 3G sequence will be assigned to the last three or the first three residues of the reference 4G sequence, respectively, while the deletion will remain unidentified.

Michał
05-20-2017, 06:44 PM
Well it is obvious my knowledge on this is extremely low. Dont even know what makes it disturbing or confusing, is there something I can read to get up to speed on this?
The most important thing you need to know in this case is that your M17- result is almost certainly false negative.

homosapien
05-20-2017, 07:01 PM
The most important thing you need to know in this case is that your M17- result is almost certainly false negative.

Thanks, why does M18 which is also an INDEL show a deletion. Would it mean only M17 is false negative and M18 is true negative? Appreciate your reply.

RS3909 which would be R1b1c1 (M18), and I am R1a.

TXLNG2P rs3909 21733163 — or AA —

Michał
05-20-2017, 07:29 PM
Thanks, why does M18 which is also an INDEL show a deletion. Would it mean only M17 is false negative and M18 is true negative? Appreciate your reply.

RS3909 which would be R1b1c1 (M18), and I am R1a.

TXLNG2P rs3909 21733163 — or AA —
What I wrote does not mean that all INDELS (or all deletions) give false negative results in all chip-based tests. It depends on both the particular mutated sequence and the oligonucleotide probes designed to specifically recognize the mutated or non-mutated alleles. Some INDELs are consistently identified in such tests, but there are also many INDELs that give either false negative or false positive results,. For example, Geno2 is known to give false positive results for L366. Also, some tests use probes that are able to reliably identify a given mutation, while other tests fail to do so. Finally, the same actually applies to regular SNPs (ie. to non-INDELs), only that it happens less frequently when using this particular technology.

Please also note that since M18 is associated with a specific subclade of R1b, all we can say in your case is that this test is unlikely to produce false positive results. You would need to test some known (confirmed) M18+ samples to determine whether it fails to detect this mutation.

homosapien
05-20-2017, 08:06 PM
What I wrote does not mean that all INDELS (or all deletions) give false negative results in all chip-based tests. It depends on both the particular mutated sequence and the oligonucleotide probes designed to specifically recognize the mutated or non-mutated alleles. Some INDELs are consistently identified in such tests, but there are also many INDELs that give either false negative or false positive results,. For example, Geno2 is known to give false positive results for L366. Also, some tests use probes that are able to reliably identify a given mutation, while other tests fail to do so. Finally, the same actually applies to regular SNPs (ie. to non-INDELs), only that it happens less frequently when using this particular technology.

Please also note that since M18 is associated with a specific subclade of R1b, all we can say in your case is that this test is unlikely to produce false positive results. You would need to test some known (confirmed) M18+ samples to determine whether it fails to detect this mutation.

Thanks, no I did not mean to say all INDEL's will give false negative results. I think i should have reworded my question, since there were 2 parts to the question.

1) First Part: INDEL SNP's either show a deletion or presence of nucleotides. Both deletion and presence is a valid mutation. However as explained by you some chips are know to produce false negative or false positive in the true detection of a deletion or presence.

2) Second Part: When i search for a SNP in the raw data browser, which is not associated with R1a-M417 it results in "not found".
The case of M18 was peculiar because it was found and shows as deleted. When it should not be found at all as it is under the R1b branch. This was the part which was confusing, which was not about false negative or false positive. What to make of that?

Michał
05-20-2017, 09:06 PM
1) First Part: INDEL SNP's either show a deletion or presence of nucleotides. Both deletion and presence is a valid mutation. However as explained by you some chips are know to produce false negative or false positive in the true detection of a deletion or presence.
Yes, this is correct. In most cases when a chip-based test is unable to detect a given mutation, we get a no-call result. This happens when both probes (ie. the one specific for a mutation and the other specific for a non-mutated allele) produce equally strong or equally weak signals, which means they are not specific enough. However, in some cases one of the probes gives always a stronger signal (ie. for both mutated and non-mutated allele), so in such case we get a false positive or a false negative result (depending on which of the two probes this is).



2) Second Part: When i search for a SNP in the raw data browser, which is not associated with R1a-M417 it results in "not found".
The case of M18 was peculiar because it was found and shows as deleted. When it should not be found at all as it is under the R1b branch. This was the part which was confusing, which was not about false negative or false positive. What to make of that?
Well, in such case this is either a false positive result or this is a recurrent mutation, with the former being more likely, as M18 is not reported by YFull as being found in any other haplogroup.

parasar
05-21-2017, 07:41 PM
Reviving this thread just to say - kudos to Passarino!
While place of origin M17 may still be in dispute, M417 is another matter - the Ukraine is definitely looking possible for M417.

New Results
Eight thousand years of natural selection in Europe
"Further evidence for a connection between the Srubnaya and populations of central/south Asia—which is absent in ancient central Europeans including people of the Corded Ware culture and is nearly absent in present-day Europeans23—is provided by the occurrence in four Srubnaya and one Poltavka males of haplogroup R1a-Z93 which is common in present-day central/south Asians and Bronze Age people from the Altai24 (Supplementary Data Table 1). This represents a direct link between the European steppe and central/south Asia, an intriguing observation that may be related to the spread of Indo-European languages in that direction.


...The Yamnaya from Samara and Kalmykia, the Afanasievo people from the Altai (3300-3000 BCE), and the Poltavka Middle Bronze Age (2900-2200 BCE) population that followed the Yamnaya in Samara, are all genetically homogeneous, forming a tight “Bronze Age steppe” cluster ...

... After the Poltavka period, population change occurred in Samara: the Late Bronze Age Srubnaya have 88 ~17% Anatolian Neolithic or EEF ancestry...

Srubnaya also harbored such ancestry indicates that the Anatolian Neolithic or EEF ancestry could have come into the steppe from a more eastern source ... Srubnaya possess exclusively (n=6) R1a Y chromosomes (Extended Data Table 1), and four of them (and one Poltavka male) belonged to haplogroup R1a-Z93 which is common in central/south Asians, very rare in present-day Europeans, and absent in all ancient central Europeans studied to date ..."

Samples' Ages:
Poltavka 4.9-4.7 kya
Srubnaya 3.9-3.6 kya

Per YFull:
Age of Z93: 5000 kya
Age of Z2124: 4800 kya
Age of Y40: 4800 kya
Age of M780: 4800 kya

Analysis of splits:
Y3/F2597/M727 * M605 * L657/S347*Y26/M780*Y2/M723*Y13*V1981/Y27/M634

Age of my ancestral line Y9 3900 kya

The sequence:

Z94-M780(xV1981/Y27/M634)-B163 Cossack, Zaporozhie, Ukraine

M634xL657/S347 Tajik, Ishkasim

L657-Y9/V4070 South Asia

L657xY9 South Asia

362 GS000035239-ASM Cosk2 Cossacks R1a2b
363 GS000016189-ASM Ishk1 Ishkasim R1a2b
364 GS000016808-ASM OrMc1 Odisha R1a2b
365 GS000016966-ASM Kurmi1 Kurmi R1a2b
366 GS000016799-ASM Gupta1 Gupta R1a2b

Using 0.74x10-9 mutations/base/year mutation rate
12 P 1.00 48,142 46,813 49,445 36,465 58,079
13 P1 1.00 35,282 33,662 36,917 26,221 43,362
14 R 1.00 28,891 27,240 30,540 21,219 35,873
15 R1 1.00 23,729 22,151 25,314 17,255 29,734
16 R1a 1.00 5,884 5,418 6,592 4,220 7,743
17 R1a2 1.00 5,556 5,132 6,240 3,997 7,330
23 R1a2a 1.00 4,339 3,570 5,036 2,781 5,915

243.4 years/SNP

Approximate ages
M780 ~4582 years
M634 ~4339 years
L657 ~ 3852 years very close now to the TMRCA of 3900 ybp calculated by YFull
Y9 ~ 3600 years

Based on the above a reasonable argument can be made that my L657 Y9 line descended from the Z93 in either Poltavka or Srubnaya.

O.N. Trubachev's and Paul Kretschmer's theories on maeotim temarundam matrem maris look sound.

From my old notes posted at DNA Forums:




Location of (M780 sample) Zaporozhie, Ukraine - 47.8 35.2

One from Arabia also M634+L657-
YF08866 https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Y3/

parasar
05-23-2017, 03:27 AM
Correct me if I am wrong............but is it not the system that a SNP negative is older than the same SNP which is positive?

This is what I was told for all SNP

That is correct, in general the original state is older.
But sometimes a SNP occurs again at the same location.
So for eg R1a though much later on the BT line has the SRY10831 state for A.

Safedrugs
10-07-2017, 05:58 AM
I have a deletion in M17, FTDNA has M17 assumed positive, and YFull shows as positive (accurately) as this is a deletion. I was hoping to help sort our large families from early USA
as our haplogroup is R-YP360* with R-YP6089, and R-YP430 in our ChasCitCo group. My number is YF1821 and have the deletion as the calls for
21733165 G 46 reads 46 G
21733166 G Assigned 2G 45 Del
21733167 G 48 reads 48 G
21733168 G 48 reads 1T 47 G There are are 5 to 7 or more of our group with a deletion but as you comment they would not have to be the same deletion and the same family as any deletion could be assigned to 2173166. The families are early Virginia and with a dearth of records from this period due to burning of records during the civil war (1860's) and we needed records from 1600 to even 1800. YFull shows all are positive for M17. Sample ID HG 21733165 21733166 21733167 21733168
REFSEQ
G

G

G

G
YF01615 R-YP360*
G

del

G

G
YF10321 R-YP360*
G

del

G

G
YF05570 R-YP360*
G

del

G

G
YF05598 R-YP360*
G

del

G

G
YF05940 R-YP360*
G

del

G

G
YF05942 R-YP360*
G

del

G

G
YF01861 R-YP360*
del

G

G

G
YF02346 R-YP360*
G

del

G

G
YF03400 R-YP360*
G

del

G

G
YF10582 R-YP360*
G

del

G

G
YF09701 R-YP360*
G

del

G

G
YF08993 R-YP360*
G

del

G

G
YF05938 R-YP360*
G

del

G

G
YF01666 R-YP360*
del

G

G

G
YF01821 R-YP360*
G

del

G

G
YF01858 R-YP360*
G

del

G

G
YF01859 R-YP360*
G

del

G

G
YF01912 R-YP360*
G

del

G

G
YF02391 R-YP360*
G

del

G

G
YF03243 R-YP360*
G

del

G

G
YF03359 R-YP6089
G

del

G

G
YF08994 R-YP6089
G

del

G

G
YF01860 R-YP430
del

G

G

G
YF01620 R-YP430
G

del

G

G
YF03537 R-YP430
G

del

G

G
YF03402 R-YP430
G

del

G

G
YF08991 R-YP5504*
G

del

G

G
YF06512 R-Y23256
G

del

G

G
YF06402 R-Y23256
G

del

G

G
YF05668 R-YP5006
G

del

G

G
YF05514 R-YP5006
G

del

G

G
YF03240 R-YP5006
G

del

G

G