PDA

View Full Version : DF27 aDNA Discussion Thread



Webb
09-22-2020, 01:19 PM
I wanted to start a thread to capture the DF27 aDNA samples as we seem to be finally seeing some. Sometimes it the sample calls get lost in a paper where, such as the Viking Paper, there are numerous samples and those threads aren't devoted to DF27. These are the calls by Alex Williamson from the Viking Paper:

VK147 0.822 R-Y75899 R-M269>P312/S116>Z40481>ZZ11>DF27/S250>Z195/S355>Z272>BY907>FGC14113

VK166 4.498 R-BY45170 RM269>P312/S116>Z40481>ZZ11>DF27/S250>Z195/S355>Z198>ZS312>Z262>M167>Z264>Z205>CTS606>CTS5337
>CTS3555>Z29713>~22225069-T-A>BY6257

VK329 1.195 R-M269>P312/S116>Z40481>ZZ11>DF27/S250>Z195/S355>Z272>S450>Z295/S1217>S25783>CTS4065>S16864

VK365 0.764 R-M269>P312/S116>Z40481>ZZ11>DF27/S250>ZZ12>BY3289>Y6954>Y6951>4261976-T-TGCGG>Y15636

VK403 1.49 R-M269>P312/S116>Z40481>ZZ11>DF27/S250>Z195/S355>Z198>ZS312>Z262>M167>Z264>Z205>~22224168-A-C
>Z206/S235

VK87 3.021 R-Z198 R-M269>P312/S116>Z40481>ZZ11>DF27/S250>Z195/S355>Z198>ZS312>Z262


This is a link to Alex's original post:

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?17812-Population-genomics-of-the-Viking-world-(bioxiv-2019-Copenhagen)&p=701624&viewfull=1#post701624

Sean Deven Vincent
09-22-2020, 01:50 PM
Knowing that my lines pre-historical cousins came from the more northerly, north german plain is helpful. (for personal familial reasons I want to scour the early gravesites in Kiel someday....) The Longobord angle is interesting and also possibly helpful if they were indeed among the z195 camp. My dna has shown I am part of the north, of the DF27 north-south axis.

razyn
09-22-2020, 03:48 PM
I wanted to start a thread to capture the DF27 aDNA samples as we seem to be finally seeing some. Sometimes it the sample calls get lost in a paper where, such as the Viking Paper, there are numerous samples and those threads aren't devoted to DF27. These are the calls by Alex Williamson from the Viking Paper:

VK329 1.195 R-M269>P312/S116>Z40481>ZZ11>DF27/S250>Z195/S355>Z272>S450>Z295/S1217>S25783>CTS4065>S16864

I was interested in that one for several years, mainly because it seemed fairly high-level but wasn't showing up very often (especially at FTDNA); and it was slow to get onto various trees. You (Webb) were one of the early customers for the single-SNP test for it. Be that as it may, I'm glad it has turned out to be detectable, and detected, in aDNA. Since we started looking for it (IIRC, in March of 2014 -- after Chromo2 chip results had identified a few anonymized samples bearing it) it has seemed to be widespread, but thin on the ground almost everywhere. Dare I say, reflecting the Viking lifestyle? Nej, tak. I dare not.

Webb
09-22-2020, 04:28 PM
I was interested in that one for several years, mainly because it seemed fairly high-level but wasn't showing up very often (especially at FTDNA); and it was slow to get onto various trees. You (Webb) were one of the early customers for the single-SNP test for it. Be that as it may, I'm glad it has turned out to be detectable, and detected, in aDNA. Since we started looking for it (IIRC, in March of 2014 -- after Chromo2 chip results had identified a few anonymized samples bearing it) it has seemed to be widespread, but thin on the ground almost everywhere. Dare I say, reflecting the Viking lifestyle? Nej, tak. I dare not.

Something else interesting is sample:

VK147 0.822 R-Y75899 R-M269>P312/S116>Z40481>ZZ11>DF27/S250>Z195/S355>Z272>BY907>FGC14113

Alex lists the final for this one as R-Y75899, which is the DF17 Ireland/Scotland cluster, which includes two members here at Anthrogenica.

Gray Fox
09-23-2020, 10:26 PM
A couple of m167's? Who'd have thunk?! :beerchug:

TigerMW
09-24-2020, 05:53 PM
You guys have plowed through the "The genomic history of the Iberian Peninsula over the past 8000 years" by Olalde, right? I found this in the supplement trying to find more info R1b-P312 people.

"Only one Bronze Age male, esp005.SG (7), had DNA sequences overlapping R1b-DF27 (R1b1a1a2a1a2a) and he was positive for the mutation. Two Bronze Age males, I6470 and I3997, had DNA sequences overlapping R1b-Z195 (R1b1a1a2a1a2a1), with I6470 being negative and I3997 positive. Eleven Bronze Age males had DNA sequences overlapping R1b-Z225 (R1b1a1a2a1a2a5), with only VAD001 being positive for the mutation (one Iron Age male, I3320, is also positive for this mutation). We thus detect three Bronze Age males who belonged to DF27 (154, 155), confirming its presence in Bronze Age Iberia. The other Iberian Bronze Age males could belong to DF27 as well, but the extremely low recovery rate of this SNP in our data set prevented us to study its true distribution."

Almost any of these studies that show R1b-P312 people may not be picking up DF27 nor ZZ12. There could be a lot of folks that are ZZ12 that look like P312.

Webb
09-24-2020, 08:43 PM
You guys have plowed through the "The genomic history of the Iberian Peninsula over the past 8000 years" by Olalde, right? I found this in the supplement trying to find more info R1b-P312 people.

"Only one Bronze Age male, esp005.SG (7), had DNA sequences overlapping R1b-DF27 (R1b1a1a2a1a2a) and he was positive for the mutation. Two Bronze Age males, I6470 and I3997, had DNA sequences overlapping R1b-Z195 (R1b1a1a2a1a2a1), with I6470 being negative and I3997 positive. Eleven Bronze Age males had DNA sequences overlapping R1b-Z225 (R1b1a1a2a1a2a5), with only VAD001 being positive for the mutation (one Iron Age male, I3320, is also positive for this mutation). We thus detect three Bronze Age males who belonged to DF27 (154, 155), confirming its presence in Bronze Age Iberia. The other Iberian Bronze Age males could belong to DF27 as well, but the extremely low recovery rate of this SNP in our data set prevented us to study its true distribution."

Almost any of these studies that show R1b-P312 people may not be picking up DF27 nor ZZ12. There could be a lot of folks that are ZZ12 that look like P312.

Plus the two Sicilian Bell Beaker samples were Z195 and the Alsace Bronze Age sample was Z225.

R.Rocca
09-24-2020, 08:51 PM
You guys have plowed through the "The genomic history of the Iberian Peninsula over the past 8000 years" by Olalde, right? I found this in the supplement trying to find more info R1b-P312 people.

"Only one Bronze Age male, esp005.SG (7), had DNA sequences overlapping R1b-DF27 (R1b1a1a2a1a2a) and he was positive for the mutation. Two Bronze Age males, I6470 and I3997, had DNA sequences overlapping R1b-Z195 (R1b1a1a2a1a2a1), with I6470 being negative and I3997 positive. Eleven Bronze Age males had DNA sequences overlapping R1b-Z225 (R1b1a1a2a1a2a5), with only VAD001 being positive for the mutation (one Iron Age male, I3320, is also positive for this mutation). We thus detect three Bronze Age males who belonged to DF27 (154, 155), confirming its presence in Bronze Age Iberia. The other Iberian Bronze Age males could belong to DF27 as well, but the extremely low recovery rate of this SNP in our data set prevented us to study its true distribution."

Almost any of these studies that show R1b-P312 people may not be picking up DF27 nor ZZ12. There could be a lot of folks that are ZZ12 that look like P312.

Yes, it is a well known issue. The locations for DF27 and U152 are not picked up by most of the aDNA studies, so we are forced to look for downstream markers. The ones that that are DF27* and U152* can only be called down to P312.

JoeyP37
09-24-2020, 10:34 PM
23andMe has the same problem; one of my cousins is a DF27 Tipperary Ryan and he's only given R-P312 as his designation.

razyn
09-24-2020, 10:40 PM
The locations for DF27 and U152 are not picked up by most of the aDNA studies, so we are forced to look for downstream markers.
Sometimes they are picked up, and put back down. Because derived calls for those mutations could be false positives, caused by deamination. And if they could be, the default assumption (per their sometimes-stated criteria, a pre-existing condition) is that they are false positives. No-call is less likely to get you denied tenure than wrong-call. But this set of blinders helps to make the back story for several important haplogroups, including "brothers" DF27 and U152, a slow plot to develop. Especially in peer-reviewed academic literature, which is pretty slow at the best of times.

R.Rocca
09-25-2020, 01:22 AM
Sometimes they are picked up, and put back down. Because derived calls for those mutations could be false positives, caused by deamination. And if they could be, the default assumption (per their sometimes-stated criteria, a pre-existing condition) is that they are false positives. No-call is less likely to get you denied tenure than wrong-call. But this set of blinders helps to make the back story for several important haplogroups, including "brothers" DF27 and U152, a slow plot to develop. Especially in peer-reviewed academic literature, which is pretty slow at the best of times.

It's not that. Most ancient DNA samples are purposely not whole genome tested, but rather are targeted around certain areas to get the most DNA comparison against other samples for autosomal PCRs etc. The positions where DF27 and U152 are located are not called. Some of the earlier studies did call those areas, but that is not longer the case with the newer ones.

Ric
09-25-2020, 01:54 PM
VK329 1.195 R-M269>P312/S116>Z40481>ZZ11>DF27/S250>Z195/S355>Z272>S450>Z295/S1217>S25783>CTS4065>S16864

Indeed this one is interesting. But if the samples are 1300BC, that's about the age of CTS4065 itself. In this case, since there cannot be possibly many CTS4065 individuals living at that time, what do you make of this finding ? where there actually many CTS4065 living in 1300BC ?

Also since modern CTS4065 presence is widespread from Spain to Denmark, what is your preferred hypothesis: that CTS4065 was already dispersed BEFORE the battle, or that the dispersion occurred AFTER the battle, being even possibly triggered by the battle ?

PS: sorry i am confused with the other paper on the Bronze age battle. This thread is about the Vikings, obviously not 1300BC.

Webb
09-25-2020, 02:32 PM
Indeed this one is interesting. But if the samples are 1300BC, that's about the age of CTS4065 itself. In this case, since there cannot be possibly many CTS4065 individuals living at that time, what do you make of this finding ? where there actually many CTS4065 living in 1300BC ?

Also since modern CTS4065 presence is widespread from Spain to Denmark, what is your preferred hypothesis: that CTS4065 was already dispersed BEFORE the battle, or that the dispersion occurred AFTER the battle, being even possibly triggered by the battle ?

PS: sorry i am confused with the other paper on the Bronze age battle. This thread is about the Vikings, obviously not 1300BC.

This is the site information for VK329:

Sample: VK329 / Denmark_Ribe 8
Location: Ribe, Jutland, Denmark
Age: Viking 9-11th centuries CE
Y-DNA: R-S18894
mtDNA: H3-T152C

Ric
09-25-2020, 03:08 PM
This is the site information for VK329:

Sample: VK329 / Denmark_Ribe 8
Location: Ribe, Jutland, Denmark
Age: Viking 9-11th centuries CE
Y-DNA: R-S18894
mtDNA: H3-T152C

Thanks Webb. 9-11th century, it's not too surprising to find a CTS4065 guy, even as a Viking.

ArmandoR1b
09-26-2020, 05:34 PM
I am especially interested in the samples with the highest coverage since more SNPs can be found that way and in seeing if it affects anything at YFull. I haven't had time to lookup more information on these specimens to see if there is isotope analysis that indicates region of residence prior to death.

I am also interested in VK329 since it has a 14C Cal. Date. I wonder if any private mutations were found for this specimen but with a coverage of only 1.195 I guess there weren't many if any.




Sample
Coverage
YFull v8.08.00 link
YFull formed
Country
MajorDivision
MinorDivision
Age
Finer_age
14C Cal. Date (1 sigma)
SampleType


VK166
4.498
https://bit.ly/3mTtPSp
1950 ybp
UK
Oxford, England
St_John’s_College_Oxford
Viking
880-1000 CE

Petrous


VK87
3.021
https://bit.ly/3j6ZfCG
4500 ybp
Denmark
Jutland
Hesselbjerg
Viking
850-900 CE

Tooth


VK403
1.49
https://bit.ly/36aI2EA
3500 ybp
Sweden
Skara
Varnhem
Viking
10-12th centuries CE

Petrous


VK329
1.195
https://bit.ly/3mSXlb2
3100 ybp
Denmark
Jutland
Ribe
Viking
9-11th centuries CE
711-864 CE
Petrous


VK147
0.822


UK
Oxford, England
St_John’s_College_Oxford
Viking
880-1000 CE

Petrous


VK365
0.764
https://bit.ly/3i2tCZL
2700 ybp
Denmark
Langeland
Bogøvej
Viking
10th century CE

Tooth

ArmandoR1b
09-26-2020, 05:48 PM
YFull has already made a change to VK166. I'll post a new table shortly.

ArmandoR1b
09-26-2020, 05:59 PM
New table with updates



Sample
Coverage
YFull v8.08.00 link
YFull formed
Country
MajorDivision
MinorDivision
Age
Finer_age
14C Cal. Date (1 sigma)
SampleType


VK166
4.498
https://bit.ly/3353vNp
2800 ybp
UK
Oxford, England
St_John’s_College_Oxford
Viking
880-1000 CE

Petrous


VK87
3.021
https://bit.ly/3j6ZfCG
4500 ybp
Denmark
Jutland
Hesselbjerg
Viking
850-900 CE

Tooth


VK403
1.49
https://bit.ly/36aI2EA
3500 ybp
Sweden
Skara
Varnhem
Viking
10-12th centuries CE

Petrous


VK329
1.195
https://bit.ly/3mSXlb2
3100 ybp
Denmark
Jutland
Ribe
Viking
9-11th centuries CE
711-864 CE
Petrous


VK261
1.049
https://bit.ly/2EBvvPf
4500 ybp
UK
Dorset, England
Ridgeway_Hill_Mass_Grave_Dorset
Viking
10-11th centuries CE
970-1025 CE
Petrous


VK147
0.822


UK
Oxford, England
St_John’s_College_Oxford
Viking
880-1000 CE

Petrous


VK365
0.764


Denmark
Langeland
Bogøvej
Viking
10th century CE

Tooth

Dalluin
09-26-2020, 06:06 PM
Funny, i'm quite close to VK329 (0.0164775 unsc.) and VK403 (0.02035927 unsc.) both Z195+ with me ZZ12+ (so Z195-);
VK365 ZZ12+ came after with 0.02430411 unsc.

ArmandoR1b
09-26-2020, 06:21 PM
Funny, i'm quite close to VK329 (0.0164775 unsc.) and VK403 (0.02035927 unsc.) both Z195+ with me ZZ12+ (so Z195-);
VK365 ZZ12+ came after with 0.02430411 unsc.

Y-DNA and autosomal DNA are two different animals. There is a correlation where if you have a certain type of autosomal DNA you will have ancestors with the most common Y-DNA subclades that are found in that autosomal DNA category but a specific Y-DNA subclade for a single person doesn't mean they will have the same Y-DNA subclade as others with the same autosomal DNA.

Webb
09-26-2020, 08:39 PM
Something else interesting is sample:

VK147 0.822 R-Y75899 R-M269>P312/S116>Z40481>ZZ11>DF27/S250>Z195/S355>Z272>BY907>FGC14113

Alex lists the final for this one as R-Y75899, which is the DF17 Ireland/Scotland cluster, which includes two members here at Anthrogenica.

I think I was incorrect. FTDNA has this snp on their tree with a Canadian and German but doing a little more digging, I believe this sample clusters somewhere with the Colombian and Scot under R-PH92.

ArmandoR1b
09-26-2020, 09:07 PM
I think I was incorrect. FTDNA has this snp on their tree with a Canadian and German but doing a little more digging, I believe this sample clusters somewhere with the Colombian and Scot under R-PH92.

According to the post by Roberta at https://dna-explained.com/2020/09/18/442-ancient-viking-skeletons-hold-dna-surprises-does-your-y-or-mitochondrial-dna-match-daily-updates-here/ they are R-Y75899 (https://www.familytreedna.com/public/y-dna-haplotree/R;name=R-Y75899)and are below R-Y31431 which is a brother clade to R-PH92.

razyn
09-27-2020, 12:42 AM
It's not that. Most ancient DNA samples are purposely not whole genome tested, but rather are targeted around certain areas to get the most DNA comparison against other samples for autosomal PCRs etc. The positions where DF27 and U152 are located are not called. Some of the earlier studies did call those areas, but that is not longer the case with the newer ones.

Well, this is not the first time we've had this conversation. And I take your point, in post #950 here: https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?6988-drought-of-ancient-DNA-papers-on-prehistoric-Europe-SW-Asia&p=635249&viewfull=1#post635249 If they are testing with a 1240K array, and those loci are not on the test, their failure to find DF27 and U152 is not because of their fear of deamination at loci they aren't seeing.

On the other hand, if academics tell us they are throwing out C>T and G>A results a priori, I think we should believe them. This was stated in the Mittnik et al paper about the Lech Valley. That was when I started objecting. https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?18586-Kinship-based-social-inequality-in-Bronze-Age-Europe&p=609549&viewfull=1#post609549.

And I don't think I was mistaken, because even if DF27 and U152 loci were on an array they used, they would have tossed a single-call example. (They would accept two out of three; but most of those aDNA samples aren't yielding three calls at a locus.) This is what they said, quoted from the Mittnik et al paper by Wing Genealogist in post #6 of that same thread:


SI 4 – Y-chromosomal haplogroup assignment
Assignment for Y-chromosomal haplogroups was performed following the nomenclature of the
International Society of Genetic Genealogy (ISOGG) version 11.110 (retrieved 21 April 2016,
http://www.isogg.org). Haplogroup defining SNPs that were covered in any of the 53 males are
listed in table S8. Calls on C-to-T [like U152+] or G-to-A [like DF27+] SNPs were only considered
reliable when more than 50% of calls showed the allele (table S8).

So the other problem besides leaving those loci off the chip test (your explanation) was not believing their eyes when they used NextGen sequencing and the locus was covered (my complaint -- admittedly relevant for only a minority of the aDNA results we are now seeing).

Parenthetically, a couple of years ago Armando and I brought I0806 Quedlinburg guy to the attention of Iñigo Olalde, on a 23andMe chat. And IIRC he corresponded further with Armando. Somewhere (I can't find it) he mentioned that they wouldn't accept a single call for a G to A mutation, because of the probability of its just being damage. But you (Rocca) had also seen a ZZ11+ call for that sample.

Anyway -- in the race to discover (via aDNA) and explain the peopling of western Europe, DF27 starts with his left foot wearing a lead shoe (disregard potential deamination damage), and his right foot wearing a concrete block (leave it off the test). Ready, set, GO!!! L21 wins, with U152 a distant second, on the back of his speedy grandson L2! DF27 not in the race. Who would have thought it. Luck of the Irish.

ArmandoR1b
09-27-2020, 01:28 AM
Parenthetically, a couple of years ago Armando and I brought I0806 Quedlinburg guy to the attention of Iñigo Olalde, on a 23andMe chat. And IIRC he corresponded further with Armando. Somewhere (I can't find it) he mentioned that they wouldn't accept a single call for a G to A mutation, because of the probability of its just being damage. But you (Rocca) had also seen a ZZ11+ call for that sample.

Anyway -- in the race to discover (via aDNA) and explain the peopling of western Europe, DF27 starts with his left foot wearing a lead shoe (disregard potential deamination damage), and his right foot wearing a concrete block (leave it off the test). Ready, set, GO!!! L21 wins, with U152 a distant second, on the back of his speedy grandson L2! DF27 not in the race. Who would have thought it. Luck of the Irish.

You remember correctly. Olalde, out of the blue, responded to a post of mine about the origin of DF27. That is when I brought up DF27 in I0806 Quedlinburg and I even gave him a link to Anthrogenica, most likely to this (https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?8476-More-Bell-Beaker-U152-and-one-ZZ11&p=185448&viewfull=1#post185448) post, and I also pointed out,in similar words, that the lack of a read of DF27 in ancient specimens doesn't allow for a proper hypothesis of the origin of DF27 in Europe. Unfortunately he didn't respond to that last point. My hope is that someday high resolution NGS or WGS testing is done on all of the R1b-M343 specimens and if possible they use petrous bone.

Ric
09-27-2020, 04:10 PM
It's not hard to believe df27 is hard to read since even in our fresh samples, many here have just an inferred positive for df27. i.e me after a m343 pack and a BigY.
Let' say you find another snp contemporary to, or close enough to df27, would that be a big deal to change ?

ArmandoR1b
09-27-2020, 07:54 PM
It's not hard to believe df27 is hard to read since even in our fresh samples, many here have just an inferred positive for df27. i.e me after a m343 pack and a BigY.
Let' say you find another snp contemporary to, or close enough to df27, would that be a big deal to change ?

We've known ever since Thomas Krahn created the individual SNP test for DF27 that it was hard to read. See https://www.worldfamilies.net/forum/index.php?topic=10485.0 The issue is that ever since Rocca et al. 2012 (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0041634) geneticists should have known to find a way to be sure that DF27 would be captured with their testing even if they have to use two different tests on the same specimen which is what seemed to happen with I0806 from Quedlinburg and esp005 from Valdiosera et al. 2018 (https://www.pnas.org/content/115/13/3428) and subsequently Olalde et al. 2019 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6436108/). The testing you got at FTDNA is different from what is done by geneticists on ancient specimens. The Big Y testing at least captures so many variants that it is easy to find existing, and new mutations that were previously unknown, downstream from DF27 wheres the 1240k testing, and similar, by geneticists on ancient specimens, only captures specific regions and therefore a huge number of positions on the Y chromosome is missed and therefore what would be inferred as DF27 due to downstream markers is labeled as P312 or upstream if the DNA damaged so badly that even P312 doesn't have a read.

There is no contemporary to DF27. All mutations downstream from DF27 are descendants of DF27 and therefore younger. It is many of these downstream markers that are not captured by the testing performed by geneticists on ancient specimens. I've pointed the problem of a lack of a read on DF27 and downstream markers in a lot of posts, in this forum and others, prior to this thread.

Webb
09-27-2020, 08:26 PM
It seems that there isn’t a problem calling Z225 or Z195, at least by a number of people who have gone through the bam files when they become available. I would assume, then that these two markers are on the 1240k testing, however, there is still a lot of DF27 that isn’t either of these clades.

ArmandoR1b
09-27-2020, 08:44 PM
VK335 is also at YFull. I just found it by going to the YFull DF27 page and searching for VK. It was probably there already when I made the first table.



Sample
Coverage
YFull v8.08.00 link
YFull formed
Country
MajorDivision
MinorDivision
Age
Finer_age
14C Cal. Date (1 sigma)
SampleType


VK166
4.498
https://bit.ly/3353vNp
2800 ybp
UK
Oxford, England
St_John’s_College_Oxford
Viking
880-1000 CE

Petrous


VK87
3.021
https://bit.ly/3j6ZfCG
4500 ybp
Denmark
Jutland
Hesselbjerg
Viking
850-900 CE

Tooth


VK403
1.49
https://bit.ly/36aI2EA
3500 ybp
Sweden
Skara
Varnhem
Viking
10-12th centuries CE

Petrous


VK329
1.195
https://bit.ly/3mSXlb2
3100 ybp
Denmark
Jutland
Ribe
Viking
9-11th centuries CE
711-864 CE
Petrous


VK335
1.058
https://bit.ly/2FWGtQh
4400 ybp
Sweden
Oland
Oland
Viking
9-11th centuries CE

Petrous


VK261
1.049
https://bit.ly/2EBvvPf
4500 ybp
UK
Dorset, England
Ridgeway_Hill_Mass_Grave_Dorset
Viking
10-11th centuries CE
970-1025 CE
Petrous


VK147
0.822


UK
Oxford, England
St_John’s_College_Oxford
Viking
880-1000 CE

Petrous


VK365
0.764


Denmark
Langeland
Bogøvej
Viking
10th century CE

Tooth

ArmandoR1b
09-27-2020, 09:18 PM
It seems that there isn’t a problem calling Z225 or Z195, at least by a number of people who have gone through the bam files when they become available. I would assume, then that these two markers are on the 1240k testing, however, there is still a lot of DF27 that isn’t either of these clades.

If the DNA isn't damaged at the position that Z195 is found at then Z195 will have a call. If it is damaged then we have to rely on other markers. The majority of the VK samples have a coverage greater than 0.5 and a very large number were done on the petrous bone. VK261, VK329, VK403 and VK87 are positive for markers downstream of Z195. I'll check to see if all of them have a read on Z195 but they probably do since they have a coverage of greater than 1.0 and most of them had testing done on the petrous bone. That isn't the case with all studies of ancient specimens!

Something else that is very important is that Z195 is only 40%-60% of all DF27. So even when Z195 is captured and testing isn't done well enough then all of the samples that should be DF27+ but are Z195- aren't recognized as DF27+ unless positive for a downstream marker which can easily be missing or ignored due to be a possible false positive due to deamination.

The Olalde et al. 2018 study had a lot of samples that had no read on Z195. The coverage isn't noted in the supplementary table. I created a table with extra columns from that study and posted it in another thread quite some time ago but I'll post it here again so you can see which R-M269 specimens did not get a read on Z195. Look for the columns labeled Negative and No Coverage.





ID
Colloquial ID
Y haplogroup-ISOGG version 11.110 (21 April 2016)
SNP or equivalent
Derived SNP and 2016 Haplogroup
Negative
No Coverage
SNPs in autosomes
Label
Grouping for Beaker-associated individuals


I4890
feature 545
R1b1a1a2a1a
L151
L151/PF6542=R1b1a1a2a1a

P312, DF27, Z195, L21, U152
37,650
Beaker Central Europe
BK_Czech_CZE


I7288
RDVS_59/80-I1
R1b1a1a2
M269
CTS11468/PF6520=R1b1a1a2

P312, DF27, Z195, L21, U152
91,114
Beaker Central Europe
BK_Czech_CZE


I5024
RISE566, F0521, A01168, gr. 14
R1b1a1a2a1a
L151
L151/PF6542=R1b1a1a2a1a

P312, DF27, Z195, L21, U152
92,728
Beaker Central Europe
BK_Czech_CZE


I1381
2-Grave487
R1b1a1a2a1a
L151
L151/PF6542=R1b1a1a2a1a
U106, L21
P312, DF27, Z195, U152
690,979
Beaker Central Europe
BK_France_Mon


I1382
3-Grave515
R1b1a1a2a1a2
P312
P312=R1b1a1a2a1a2
L21
DF27, Z195, U152
607,837
Beaker Central Europe
BK_France_Mon


I1390
11-Grave68
R1b1a1a2a1a2
P312
P312=R1b1a1a2a1a2

DF27, Z195, L21, U152
449,568
Beaker Central Europe
BK_France_HAR


I1389
10-Grave69
R1b1a1a2a1a2
P312
P312=R1b1a1a2a1a2

DF27, Z195, L21, U152
97,913
Beaker Central Europe



I3599
Grave 13
R1b1a1a2a1a2
P312
P312=R1b1a1a2a1a2

DF27, Z195, L21, U152
36,524
Beaker Central Europe



I3588
Grave 2
R1b1a1a2a1a
L151
P310/PF6546/S129=R1b1a1a2a1a
U106, L21
P312, DF27, Z195, U152
419,937
Beaker Central Europe
BK_Germany_BAV


I4132
RISE560, F0187, grave 3
R1b1a1a2a1a2
P312
P312=R1b1a1a2a1a2

DF27, Z195, L21, U152
271,486
Beaker Central Europe



I5661
RISE926
R1b1a1a2
M269
PF6543/S1159/YSC0000191=R1b1a1a2a1a

DF27, Z195, L21, U152
90,529
Beaker Central Europe
BK_Germany_BAV


I5663
RISE929
R1b
M343
M343=R1b

P297, M269, L23, L51, L52, L151, DF27, Z195, L21, U152
23,224
Beaker Central Europe
BK_Germany_BAV


I5657
RISE921
R1b1a1a2
M269
PF6509=R1b1a1a2

L23, L51, L52, L151, DF27, Z195, L21, U152
61,081
Beaker Central Europe



I5660
RISE925
R1b1a1a2
M269
two R1b1a1a2 SNPs

L23, L51, L52, L151, DF27, Z195, L21, U152
58,395
Beaker Central Europe



I3604
Obj. 278, grave 9
R1b1a
L754
CTS10349/FGC42/PF6492=R1b1a1a2

L23, L51, L52, L151, DF27, Z195, L21, U152
30,589
Beaker Central Europe
BK_Germany_BAV


I3607
Obj. 335, grave 7
R1b1a1a
P297
CTS5577/PF6464=R1b1a1a

M269,L23, L51, L52, L151, DF27, Z195, L21, U152
10,064
Beaker Central Europe
BK_Germany_BAV


I5021
RISE563, F0234, obj. 8, grave 3
R1b1a1a2
M269
four R1b1a1a2 SNPs

L23, L51, L52, L151, DF27, Z195, L21, U152
97,061
Beaker Central Europe
BK_Germany_BAV


I5022
RISE564, F0241, obj. 25, grave 6
R1b1a1a2
M269
two R1b1a1a2 SNPs

L23, L51, L52, L151, DF27, Z195, L21, U152
65,655
Beaker Central Europe
BK_Germany_BAV


I0805
QLB26
R1b1a1a2
M269
two R1b1a1a2 SNPs

L23, L51, L52, L151, DF27, Z195, L21, U152
225,361
Beaker Central Europe
BK_Germany_SAN


I1530
ROT1
R1b1a1a2
M269
CTS623/PF6419=R1b1a1a2

L23, L51, L52, L151, DF27, Z195, L21, U152
32,225
Beaker Central Europe



I6534
HB0030
R1b1a1a2
M269
two R1b1a1a2 SNPs

L23, L51, L52, L151, DF27, Z195, L21, U152
72,026
Beaker Central Europe
BK_Poland_POL


I4251
RISE1122, grave 7
R1b1a1a2
M269
five R1b1a1a2 SNPs

L23, L51, L52, L151, DF27, Z195, L21, U152
80,714
Beaker Central Europe
BK_Poland_Sam


I5755
BB_01_MXI
R1b1a1a2
M269
four R1b1a1a2 SNPs

L23, L51, L52, L151, DF27, Z195, L21, U152
119,998
Beaker Central Europe
BK_Switzerland_Sio


I5757
BB_18_MXI
R1b1a1a2a1a
L151
L151=R1b1a1a2a1a

P312, DF27, Z195, L21, U152
74,999
Beaker Central Europe
BK_Switzerland_Sio


I2478
T1 ind b Us 9
R1b1a1a2a1a2
P312
P312=R1b1a1a2a1a2
Z195, L21
DF27,U152
622,069
Beaker Northern Italy
BK_Italy_Gui3


I1388
9-Grave1
R1b1a1a2a1a
L151
L151=R1b1a1a2a1a
U106
P312, DF27, Z195, L21, U152
375,748
Beaker Southern France
BK_France_Mar


I4068
skeleton 228-M3
R1b1a1a2a1a2
P312
P312=R1b1a1a2a1a2
L21
DF27, Z195, U152
469,691
Beaker The Netherlands
BK_Netherlands_Tui


I4069
skeleton 229-M4
R1b1a1a2a1a2
P312
P312=R1b1a1a2a1a2
L21
DF27, Z195, U152
721,500
Beaker The Netherlands
BK_Netherlands_Tui


I5748
skeleton 575 (Jan) M22
R1b1a1a2a1a2
P312
P312=R1b1a1a2a1a2
L21
DF27, Z195, U152
636,009
Beaker The Netherlands
BK_Netherlands_Tui


I5750
skeleton 230 Extra-M8
R1b1a1a2a1a2
P312
P312=R1b1a1a2a1a2
Z195
DF27, L21, U152
641,693
Beaker The Netherlands
BK_Netherlands_Tui


I7202
Grave 94
R1b1a1a2a1a2
P312
P312=R1b1a1a2a1a2
L21
DF27, Z195, U152
548,005
Czech_EBA



I6537
HB0049
R1b1a1a2a1a
L151
P310=R1b1a1a2a1a
U106, L21
P312, DF27, Z195, U152
533,101
Poland_BA

ArmandoR1b
09-27-2020, 09:37 PM
By the way, if anyone wants to see which SNPs are included in the 1240k SNP test see the thread at https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?18691-1240K-Y-SNPs

ArmandoR1b
09-28-2020, 02:55 AM
It seems that there isn’t a problem calling Z225 or Z195, at least by a number of people who have gone through the bam files when they become available. I would assume, then that these two markers are on the 1240k testing, however, there is still a lot of DF27 that isn’t either of these clades.



If the DNA isn't damaged at the position that Z195 is found at then Z195 will have a call. If it is damaged then we have to rely on other markers. The majority of the VK samples have a coverage greater than 0.5 and a very large number were done on the petrous bone. VK261, VK329, VK403 and VK87 are positive for markers downstream of Z195. I'll check to see if all of them have a read on Z195 but they probably do since they have a coverage of greater than 1.0 and most of them had testing done on the petrous bone. That isn't the case with all studies of ancient specimens!


I found time to analyze VK261 and VK329. Neither of them have a read for Z225 or Z195 and therefore their placement on the Y-DNA tree is based on downstream SNPs from Z195 since they are both inferred positive for Z195. So even with these specimens with decent coverage with DNA from the petrous bone have a problem with both Z225 and Z195.

ArmandoR1b
10-01-2020, 01:57 AM
You guys have plowed through the "The genomic history of the Iberian Peninsula over the past 8000 years" by Olalde, right? I found this in the supplement trying to find more info R1b-P312 people.

"Only one Bronze Age male, esp005.SG (7), had DNA sequences overlapping R1b-DF27 (R1b1a1a2a1a2a) and he was positive for the mutation. Two Bronze Age males, I6470 and I3997, had DNA sequences overlapping R1b-Z195 (R1b1a1a2a1a2a1), with I6470 being negative and I3997 positive. Eleven Bronze Age males had DNA sequences overlapping R1b-Z225 (R1b1a1a2a1a2a5), with only VAD001 being positive for the mutation (one Iron Age male, I3320, is also positive for this mutation). We thus detect three Bronze Age males who belonged to DF27 (154, 155), confirming its presence in Bronze Age Iberia. The other Iberian Bronze Age males could belong to DF27 as well, but the extremely low recovery rate of this SNP in our data set prevented us to study its true distribution."

Almost any of these studies that show R1b-P312 people may not be picking up DF27 nor ZZ12. There could be a lot of folks that are ZZ12 that look like P312.

As I have posted in this thread, and in threads in the past, I already knew about the issue of a lot of specimens not getting calls on DF27, and subclades of DF27, but I hadn't personally analyzed the files since it didn't seem necessary. Due to other comments in this thread I have been looking at the BAM files. So far I have seen what we have known about the previous Olalde et al. 2018, and what you quoted, that most of them don't have calls for Z195. However, I have found one specimen I12209 dated 1368–1211 BCE from La Requejada, San Román de Hornija, Valladolid, Castilla y León that has a derived (positive) read for DF27. Probably another example of a G->A mutation being ignored due to possible deamination. He has a no-call for Z195 and is ancestral for Z274 and Z272. I would really like some other people to look at this specimen.

razyn
10-01-2020, 02:25 AM
I have found one specimen I12209 dated 1368–1211 BCE from La Requejada, San Román de Hornija, Valladolid, Castilla y León that has a derived (positive) read for DF27. Probably another example of a G->A mutation being ignored due to possible deamination.

I feel kind of vindicated... although 15 or so would have been better. I remember that I0806 was sequenced twice, and Rocca found the DF27+ call only in one of the BAM files. Sheer luck, I think. Likewise with the downstream clades that the chip tests may occasionally find -- they aren't using a very robust list. But there might easily be extinct DF27 subclades, that could be picked up by a chip test but be unrecognized as such. Practically speaking, we only know the phylogeny below DF27 from testing men alive in the 21st century -- whose ancient (or young) YDNA lines have not daughtered out.

Webb
10-01-2020, 02:11 PM
As I have posted in this thread, and in threads in the past, I already knew about the issue of a lot of specimens not getting calls on DF27, and subclades of DF27, but I hadn't personally analyzed the files since it didn't seem necessary. Due to other comments in this thread I have been looking at the BAM files. So far I have seen what we have known about the previous Olalde et al. 2018, and what you quoted, that most of them don't have calls for Z195. However, I have found one specimen I12209 dated 1368–1211 BCE from La Requejada, San Román de Hornija, Valladolid, Castilla y León that has a derived (positive) read for DF27. Probably another example of a G->A mutation being ignored due to possible deamination. He has a no-call for Z195 and is ancestral for Z274 and Z272. I would really like some other people to look at this specimen.

That sample was called as P312 by Kolgeh, here: https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?20521-Y-Chromosome-Haplogroup-assignments-for-2500-ancient-samples&p=672282&viewfull=1#post672282.

However, it was called as ZZ12>BY15964 by R.Rocca, here: https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?16682-The-genomic-history-of-the-Iberian-Peninsula-over-the-past-8000-years&p=556114&viewfull=1#post556114

Hence my observation of the possibility of Z195 and Z225 being captured on the 1240K tests because R. Rocca determined a number of the samples from the Iberian paper were Z195. The two Sicilian BB samples were called as Z195 by Reich. Then sample, VAD001, DF27>Z225, 1867–1616 cal BCE (3400±35 BP, Ua-36345) ... C_Iberia_BA, Cogotas I, La Requejada, San Román de Hornija, Valladolid and this sample from the French Paper, OBE3626-1, Eastern France (Bas-Rhin, Alsace): 3505 +/- 35BP, 1926-1701 BC (c. 1813 BC), ZZ12 >Z229. So it might be that the location of Z229 is captured on the 1240K test as opposed to Z225.

ArmandoR1b
10-02-2020, 01:29 AM
That sample was called as P312 by Kolgeh, here: https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?20521-Y-Chromosome-Haplogroup-assignments-for-2500-ancient-samples&p=672282&viewfull=1#post672282.

Even the authors had caught that is was P312. They listed it as R1b1a1a2a1a2(xR1b1a1a2a1a2c,xR1b1a1a2a1a2b1,xR1b1a 1a2a1a2a5) which is P312 (xL21,xL2,xZ225). Notice here they don't mention Z195 or U152. That is because it does not have a read for Z195. I was more interested in the call for DF27.



However, it was called as ZZ12>BY15964 by R.Rocca, here: https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?16682-The-genomic-history-of-the-Iberian-Peninsula-over-the-past-8000-years&p=556114&viewfull=1#post556114
It's hard to tell from that post if he also saw that I12209 had a derived read for DF27. Veering off the subject a bit, BY15964 has also been found in men from Mexico and from Portugal. It is a phylogenetic equivalent of R-BY15963 (https://www.familytreedna.com/public/y-dna-haplotree/R;name=R-BY15963) You have to drill down to the subclades of R-BY15963 to see all of them.




Hence my observation of the possibility of Z195 and Z225 being captured on the 1240K tests because R. Rocca determined a number of the samples from the Iberian paper were Z195. The two Sicilian BB samples were called as Z195 by Reich. Then sample, VAD001, DF27>Z225, 1867–1616 cal BCE (3400±35 BP, Ua-36345) ... C_Iberia_BA, Cogotas I, La Requejada, San Román de Hornija, Valladolid and this sample from the French Paper, OBE3626-1, Eastern France (Bas-Rhin, Alsace): 3505 +/- 35BP, 1926-1701 BC (c. 1813 BC), ZZ12 >Z229. So it might be that the location of Z229 is captured on the 1240K test as opposed to Z225.

There is a difference between a test including an SNP and a specimen having DNA at the position that the SNP exists. Most of the samples definitely did not get a read on Z195 and Z225 due to decay of the DNA. That was the point made by the statement by the authors of Olalde et al. 2019 that Mikewww quoted. It is an accurate statement made by the authors. Therefore it doesn't matter if the test includes an SNP when the specimens have damaged DNA due to decay at the specified position. I'll keep working on getting a list of specimens with a call for Z195 and Z225 in Olalde et al. 2019 and the Viking World study. In the meantime I suggest taking a look at again at my post #28 in this thread where I pointed out which specimens in Olalde et al. 2018 do not have a read on Z195. Only 2 out of 32 have a read on Z195. This proves it is hard to get a result for that SNP in a lot of the ancient specimens. Even if it is done with the petrous bone such as I12209, VK261 and VK329. Those last two didn't even have a read for Z225. The lack of a read is very important especially since so many people don't understand that a lack of a positive read of a specific SNP many times is because of DNA decay and not because the specimens were negative for the SNP. A lack of evidence is not evidence.

sktibo
10-05-2020, 06:58 PM
Maybe this is simplistic, misguided, or totally irrelevant but I'm going to ask it anyway:

After looking at the VK samples, does it seem like a possibility that DF27 could have been carried by "Germanic" peoples?
Perhaps its a question of opinion, but could part of the high DF27 percentages in Spain and France be attributed to a group such as the Visigoths?

Webb
10-05-2020, 08:00 PM
Maybe this is simplistic, misguided, or totally irrelevant but I'm going to ask it anyway:

After looking at the VK samples, does it seem like a possibility that DF27 could have been carried by "Germanic" peoples?
Perhaps its a question of opinion, but could part of the high DF27 percentages in Spain and France be attributed to a group such as the Visigoths?

Many many years ago I had a theory about DF27 and Goths, but Razyn laughed at me. So I never brought it up again. My emotional wounds were starting to heal, but thanks to your post, I have just called to make an appointment with my therapist. Joking aside, while I think most DF27 in Spain predates Goths, I am starting to speculate that our Germanic tribes who went wandering, were a conglomerate of many various haplogroups. We now have quite a few Bronze Age DF27 samples from Spain, so we know it was there early. The oldest sample, however, is still the Quedlinburg, Germany sample, from around 2500 B.C., which is in the heart of Germany. One of the questions not yet answered, is how far North did P312, in this case DF27 get during P312's maximal geographic spread? Was DF27 a large factor in the Belgic tribes? We have the DF27 Alsace sample from around 1900 B.C., which is close. The Rhine Delta has flooded and been cleared and repopulated many times, and there is evidence of flooding mitigation as early as 500 B.C.. Were the Belgae a mixed bag of haplogroups, the Frisians, then the Franks? I know that I wasn't as surprised by the CTS4065 sample as I was the M167/SRY2627 samples.

razyn
10-05-2020, 08:46 PM
I had a theory about DF27 and Goths, but Razyn laughed at me.

Visigoths. I was only laughing at the Visi part. But anyway, speaking of absurd theories from the distant past, I suggested Ukraine and Poland in this post from seven years (and three days) ago: https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?827-Where-did-DF27-originate-and-when-and-how-did-it-expand&p=15080&viewfull=1#post15080

And I have suggested Pinsk more recently than that, but still without any hard evidence -- except what I see on northern and eastern European men's haplotree results, and don't see early enough in the Hungarian Plain, squeezing through the Iron Gates, etc.

In these latter days, saints preserve us, Generalissimo is theorizing about Corded Ware / SGC guys spreading their autosomes into Hungary and Moravia from the north; and hinting at papers he can't talk about yet with ancient DNA of L51, L11, P312 or some of those guys in the suburbs of Moscow.

I think we are getting closer to finding out, but I'm still not sure. I just continue to look farther east than most do, for our YDNA origins.

ArmandoR1b
10-06-2020, 02:21 AM
Maybe this is simplistic, misguided, or totally irrelevant but I'm going to ask it anyway:

After looking at the VK samples, does it seem like a possibility that DF27 could have been carried by "Germanic" peoples?
Perhaps its a question of opinion, but could part of the high DF27 percentages in Spain and France be attributed to a group such as the Visigoths?

The high DF27 percentages in Spain and France is definitely not due to a group such as the Visigoths. That is a group that arrived in Spain in the Roman period. DF27 was already in Spain thousands of years prior to them and any group that could be defined as Germanic. The hot spot of DF27 in France is in the southern part with it being highest along the border of Spain. That is an area that hasn't always been divided as it is now.

One of the reasons that I am creating a table of the Olalde et al. 2019 study specimens that lack of calls of DF27, Z195, and Z225 is because the lack of those calls means that many of those specimens would have easily shown to be positive for DF27 if there had been a call for DF27 and/or Z195.

Webb
10-06-2020, 01:50 PM
The high DF27 percentages in Spain and France is definitely not due to a group such as the Visigoths. That is a group that arrived in Spain in the Roman period. DF27 was already in Spain thousands of years prior to them and any group that could be defined as Germanic. The hot spot of DF27 in France is in the southern part with it being highest along the border of Spain. That is an area that hasn't always been divided as it is now.

One of the reasons that I am creating a table of the Olalde et al. 2019 study specimens that lack of calls of DF27, Z195, and Z225 is because the lack of those calls means that many of those specimens would have easily shown to be positive for DF27 if there had been a call for DF27 and/or Z195.

The only issue is that the two Sicilian Bell Beakers were called as Z195 by Reich's lab. To me this suggests that Z195 or an equivalent is captured in the 1240K test?

ArmandoR1b
10-07-2020, 10:13 AM
The only issue is that the two Sicilian Bell Beakers were called as Z195 by Reich's lab. To me this suggests that Z195 or an equivalent is captured in the 1240K test?

If the DNA is decayed then there is nothing to capture. Therefore it makes no difference if an SNP is included in a test. Which means we have no idea if an SNP is negative or positive since there is no result when the DNA is decayed.

Baraona
10-07-2020, 12:46 PM
My sub-branch of DF27 (under zz19>a2146>ph133) is heavily populated by germans, netherlanders and french, and curiously you dont see many spaniards outside my particular branch PH1503. PH1503 is a big block of equivalent snps (like 20), and I suspect that we need more french testers to break it. In the ftdna df27 proyect someone tell me that PH1503 maybe (based on the result distribution compared to others) enter later than other df27 branches with gauls or even goths. Maybe is, may be not, but appears to me very logical to think on different waves.

sktibo
10-08-2020, 07:27 PM
The high DF27 percentages in Spain and France is definitely not due to a group such as the Visigoths. That is a group that arrived in Spain in the Roman period. DF27 was already in Spain thousands of years prior to them and any group that could be defined as Germanic. The hot spot of DF27 in France is in the southern part with it being highest along the border of Spain. That is an area that hasn't always been divided as it is now.

One of the reasons that I am creating a table of the Olalde et al. 2019 study specimens that lack of calls of DF27, Z195, and Z225 is because the lack of those calls means that many of those specimens would have easily shown to be positive for DF27 if there had been a call for DF27 and/or Z195.

Ah darn, but I looked up the origin of my surname once and it said "visigothic" ! Oh well..

Webb
10-13-2020, 03:11 PM
If the DNA is decayed then there is nothing to capture. Therefore it makes no difference if an SNP is included in a test. Which means we have no idea if an SNP is negative or positive since there is no result when the DNA is decayed.

Yes, I understand that if the DNA is damaged then there can't be a read. I think there are two separate issues at play here. Razyn was alluding to the no call at DF27 and other subclades under DF27 that aren't being tested for and you were talking about damaged dna. My point was that if Z195 or an equivalent is included in the 1240K test this is roughly around 40% of DF27 using current Ytree sample numbers. If Z229/Z225 is tested, then we are up to about 45% of DF27 samples using current Ytree sample numbers, included in the 1240K test. This still leaves 55% not included. If you use snp's instead of people, the percentages will be different, but I don't have the time to count snp's. I think the biggest factor at play, is that for most of these studies, a call at R-M269 down to U106/P312 is enough for these academics. Some of it may be that P312 is as far as that particular sample could be called, but I think a call of P312 in the recent rash of papers is probably good enough for most of these authors, whereas, most of us would prefer to see the samples called as far downstream as possible.

ADW_1981
10-13-2020, 04:05 PM
Many many years ago I had a theory about DF27 and Goths, but Razyn laughed at me. So I never brought it up again. My emotional wounds were starting to heal, but thanks to your post, I have just called to make an appointment with my therapist. Joking aside, while I think most DF27 in Spain predates Goths, I am starting to speculate that our Germanic tribes who went wandering, were a conglomerate of many various haplogroups. We now have quite a few Bronze Age DF27 samples from Spain, so we know it was there early. The oldest sample, however, is still the Quedlinburg, Germany sample, from around 2500 B.C., which is in the heart of Germany. One of the questions not yet answered, is how far North did P312, in this case DF27 get during P312's maximal geographic spread? Was DF27 a large factor in the Belgic tribes? We have the DF27 Alsace sample from around 1900 B.C., which is close. The Rhine Delta has flooded and been cleared and repopulated many times, and there is evidence of flooding mitigation as early as 500 B.C.. Were the Belgae a mixed bag of haplogroups, the Frisians, then the Franks? I know that I wasn't as surprised by the CTS4065 sample as I was the M167/SRY2627 samples.

I think the answer is both. The late Bronze and Iron Age brought DF27+ to northern Germany and southern Scandinavia, but there were obviously already people there. DF27+ was just a minor addition to the area, but indeed we can see some of these branches of DF27+ with living members in north and south Europe have 3000 year old splits. Tollense was evidence of that, even if the remains we have died in battle. We have no context if similar men had already moved to adjacent areas, settled and had families, but there is no reason to believe this wasn't the case, based on what we know about the spread of relics and metallurgy.

Webb
10-16-2020, 01:59 PM
Ah darn, but I looked up the origin of my surname once and it said "visigothic" ! Oh well..

This has resulted in five therapy sessions.

sktibo
10-16-2020, 02:16 PM
This has resulted in five therapy sessions.

Can you refer me to a visigothic speciality therapist?

Ruderico
10-16-2020, 03:17 PM
Ah darn, but I looked up the origin of my surname once and it said "visigothic" ! Oh well..

To be fair a large chunk of west Iberian surnames are of Visigothic origin since their names were extremely popular during the middle ages. Mine is one of such surnames. Ironically Visigothic presence in (north)west Iberia was very light and barely relevant

sktibo
10-16-2020, 03:34 PM
To be fair a large chunk of west Iberian surnames are of Visigothic origin since their names were extremely popular during the middle ages. Mine is one of such surnames. Ironically Visigothic presence in (north)west Iberia was very light and barely relevant

I'll try not to get too attached then

Ruderico
10-16-2020, 03:58 PM
I'll try not to get too attached then

I did shed a tear when I learnt my haplogroup, surname and genetic profile were all probably completely unrelated ;)

ArmandoR1b
10-17-2020, 04:18 PM
Yes, I understand that if the DNA is damaged then there can't be a read. I think there are two separate issues at play here. Razyn was alluding to the no call at DF27 and other subclades under DF27 that aren't being tested for and you were talking about damaged dna. My point was that if Z195 or an equivalent is included in the 1240K test this is roughly around 40% of DF27 using current Ytree sample numbers. If Z229/Z225 is tested, then we are up to about 45% of DF27 samples using current Ytree sample numbers, included in the 1240K test. This still leaves 55% not included. If you use snp's instead of people, the percentages will be different, but I don't have the time to count snp's. I think the biggest factor at play, is that for most of these studies, a call at R-M269 down to U106/P312 is enough for these academics. Some of it may be that P312 is as far as that particular sample could be called, but I think a call of P312 in the recent rash of papers is probably good enough for most of these authors, whereas, most of us would prefer to see the samples called as far downstream as possible.

Umm, if the DNA is damaged there is a no-call. Same thing. So if Razyn were alluding to a no-call at DF27, which he wasn't, then it would be in essence the same thing that I am talking about. MikeWWW was talking about DF27 and ZZ12 not being picked up. So, in essence, MikeWWW and I are talking about the same thing which is important SNPs that would identify a specimen as DF27+ not being identified as such due to no-calls.

Z195 also gets a no-call in most of the specimens of the Olalde et al. 2018 and 2019 studies. I gave you the reason for the no-call but you somehow believe it is irrelevant when it is actually extremely important. When a no-call exists for an SNP that is included in a test of ancient DNA is mostly due to damaged DNA.

I looked at 61 of the Iberian specimens that were positive for L51, or equivalent, or downstream SNPs. These all have steppe autosomal DNA also. Here's the important part, only 2, out of 61, have a call for Z195 even though they were all tested for Z195.

Since we are in agreement that if Z195 was called then we could conclude that we found about 40% of the DF27 positive specimens but 96.7% of the specimens don't have a call for Z195. That's a 96.7% no-call rate of Z195 for those specimens.

Want to guess what the no-call rate is for DF27? It is 58/61 which is 95%. So the no-call rate for Z195 was actually worse than DF27.

39 out of 61 of those specimens have a no-call for Z225. That is almost a 64% no-call rate for Z225.

39 out of 61 of those specimens have a no-call for P312. That is almost a 64% no-call rate for P312.

You have stated, "It seems that there isn’t a problem calling Z225 or Z195" and that is why I am pointing out that some of the studies do have a problem calling Z225 or Z195.

I'll also mention here that EHU002 from El Hundido, Monasterio de Rodilla, Burgos, Castilla y León dated to 2562–2306 cal BCE is positive for P312 but does not have a read for DF27 or Z195 meaning we have no idea if it is negative or positive for DF27 or Z195. With all of the DF27 found in Bronze Age Iberia there is no reason to think this specimen would be negative for DF27 if it had a read on DF27.

Razyn was talking about authors of the academic studies throwing out C>T and G>A results a priori. I0806 from Quedlinburg and I12209 dated 1368–1211 BCE from La Requejada, San Román de Hornija, Valladolid, Castilla y León are two perfect examples of that. They are both derived for DF27 which is a G>A mutation and because of that they are not considered DF27+ in the academic world.

No one. Not a single person was talking about subclades under DF27 that aren't being tested for.

I think you have, or had, a flawed understanding of what no-calls are and why they exist if included in a test. DF27, Z195, and Z225 are included in all of the 1240K testing of the ancient specimens. Otherwise there would never be a call for those positions. There is also a spreadsheet, that I linked to earlier, that mentions them being included in the 1240K test.

ArmandoR1b
10-17-2020, 04:41 PM
Here is a table of the calls of P312, DF27, Z195, Z225, U152, L2, L20, and L21 of 61 of the R1b specimens with Steppe autosomal DNA from Olalde et al. 2019. This table is only meant to highlight the difficulty of getting a call for an SNP that is included in a test of ancient specimens. All of those SNPs were included in the testing of all of these individuals. This is to make readers aware that no mention of certain SNPs in the academic literature can be due to no-call or due to a result of it being considered unreliable since it is possible to be due to deamination. Other downstream SNPs are irrelevent for this point.

D means derived, A means ancestral and - means no-call.




ID
P312
DF27
Z195
Z225
U152
L2
L20
L21


I0257
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-


I12648
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-


I3484
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-


I3866
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-


I0261
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-


I3775
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-


I10940
-
A
-
-
-
-
-
-


I12877
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-


I3486
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-


I7687
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-


I8344
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-


VAD002
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-


I12641
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-


I12809
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-


I12855
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-


I3488
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-


I6472
-
-
-
-
-
A
-
-


I8343
-
-
-
-
-
-
A
A


pir001.SG
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-


I3238
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-


I12032
-
-
-
A
-
-
-
-


I7691
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-


EHU001
-
-
-
A
-
-
-
-


I12561
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-


I2472
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-


I3487
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-


I3496
-
-
-
A
-
-
-
-


I6588
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-


I7423
-
-
-
-
-
-
A
-


I7672
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-


I7675
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-


I3323
-
-
-
A
-
-
-
-


I1836
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-


I1840
-
-
-
A
-
A
A
A


I8570
-
-
-
A
-
A
A
-


I4559
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
A


VAD005
-
-
-
-
-
A
-
A


VAD004
-
-
-
A
-
-
-
A


I10895
A
-
-
A
-
-
-
A


I12410
D
-
-
A
-
A
A
A


I12640
D
-
-
-
-
-
-
-


I3576
D
-
-
A
-
A
A
A


I3582
D
-
-
A
-
-
A
-


I5665
D
-
-
A
-
-
-
-


I6618
D
-
-
-
-
-
A
-


I8341
D
-
-
-
-
-
-
-


EHU002
D
-
-
A
-
-
A
A


I3494
D
-
-
A
-
A
A
-


I4563
D
-
-
A
-
-
A
-


I6470
D
-
A
A
A
A
A
-


I2470
D
-
-
-
-
-
-
A


I3324
D
-
-
-
-
-
A
A


I3585
D
-
-
A
-
A
A
A


I6539
D
-
-
-
-
-
-
A


I3756
D
-
-
A
-
A
A
A


I12209
D
D
-
A
-
A
A
A


esp005.SG
D
D
-
A
A
-
D
A


I3997
D
-
D
A
A
A
A
A


VAD001
D
-
-
D
-
A
A
A


I3809
D
-
-
-
-
-
-
-


I6492
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
D

Webb
10-20-2020, 04:23 PM
Umm, if the DNA is damaged there is a no-call. Same thing. So if Razyn were alluding to a no-call at DF27, which he wasn't, then it would be in essence the same thing that I am talking about. MikeWWW was talking about DF27 and ZZ12 not being picked up. So, in essence, MikeWWW and I are talking about the same thing which is important SNPs that would identify a specimen as DF27+ not being identified as such due to no-calls.

Z195 also gets a no-call in most of the specimens of the Olalde et al. 2018 and 2019 studies. I gave you the reason for the no-call but you somehow believe it is irrelevant when it is actually extremely important. When a no-call exists for an SNP that is included in a test of ancient DNA is mostly due to damaged DNA.

I looked at 61 of the Iberian specimens that were positive for L51, or equivalent, or downstream SNPs. These all have steppe autosomal DNA also. Here's the important part, only 2, out of 61, have a call for Z195 even though they were all tested for Z195.

Since we are in agreement that if Z195 was called then we could conclude that we found about 40% of the DF27 positive specimens but 96.7% of the specimens don't have a call for Z195. That's a 96.7% no-call rate of Z195 for those specimens.

Want to guess what the no-call rate is for DF27? It is 58/61 which is 95%. So the no-call rate for Z195 was actually worse than DF27.

39 out of 61 of those specimens have a no-call for Z225. That is almost a 64% no-call rate for Z225.

39 out of 61 of those specimens have a no-call for P312. That is almost a 64% no-call rate for P312.

You have stated, "It seems that there isn’t a problem calling Z225 or Z195" and that is why I am pointing out that some of the studies do have a problem calling Z225 or Z195.

I'll also mention here that EHU002 from El Hundido, Monasterio de Rodilla, Burgos, Castilla y León dated to 2562–2306 cal BCE is positive for P312 but does not have a read for DF27 or Z195 meaning we have no idea if it is negative or positive for DF27 or Z195. With all of the DF27 found in Bronze Age Iberia there is no reason to think this specimen would be negative for DF27 if it had a read on DF27.

Razyn was talking about authors of the academic studies throwing out C>T and G>A results a priori. I0806 from Quedlinburg and I12209 dated 1368–1211 BCE from La Requejada, San Román de Hornija, Valladolid, Castilla y León are two perfect examples of that. They are both derived for DF27 which is a G>A mutation and because of that they are not considered DF27+ in the academic world.

No one. Not a single person was talking about subclades under DF27 that aren't being tested for.

I think you have, or had, a flawed understanding of what no-calls are and why they exist if included in a test. DF27, Z195, and Z225 are included in all of the 1240K testing of the ancient specimens. Otherwise there would never be a call for those positions. There is also a spreadsheet, that I linked to earlier, that mentions them being included in the 1240K test.

You seem to not understand Razyn's lamentation in post #10. While I am not in his head, I can guess as to his meaning of the post by his use of certain terms, "Because derived calls for those mutations could be false positives, caused by deamination. And if they could be, the default assumption (per their sometimes-stated criteria, a pre-existing condition) is that they are false positives. No-call is less likely to get you denied tenure than wrong-call. But this set of blinders helps to make the back story for several important haplogroups, including "brothers" DF27 and U152, a slow plot to develop. Especially in peer-reviewed academic literature, which is pretty slow at the best of times."
I bolded the parts where he is questioning the inability to make a call versus the unwillingness to make a call. In all of my posts, I was pointing out that if Z195 and Z229/Z225 are included in the 1240K scan, then if the dna is not damaged, a call should be made for these two, at least. I also acknowledged that there is possibly a substantial amount of DF27 that is not Z195 and Z229/Z225 that is possibly being missed. If the dna is damaged, then it is damaged. But there are a number of samples that are left at P312* by academics, that are later called by members of this forum.
On your follow up post, you have sample I3324 listed as derived for P312, however, R. Rocca called this sample as Z195, and Kolgeh called it as Z209 or P312.
Sample I3582 you have listed as derived for P312 and ancestral for Z225, however, R. Rocca called this sample as Z216 and Kolgeh called it as Z278.
There are a number of other samples listed as derived, yet R. Rocca and Kolgeh made calls for.
This is a quote from you, "They are both derived for DF27 which is a G>A mutation and because of that they are not considered DF27+ in the academic world". This is what Razyn is lamenting, not considered DF27 in the academic world. So again, unable to make a call and unwilling to make a call.
And finally, I think you have, or had a flawed understanding of how to read people's posts. You actually don't read them. You rush to challenge them, assuming they are arguing with you, such as, No one. Not a single person was talking about subclades under DF27 that aren't being tested for. This forum is open to anyone, to post anything, within reason. I posted this as a discussion point for the possibility of some of DF27 being called as P312, due to no calls or downstream positions not being included in the 1240K scan.

razyn
10-20-2020, 05:56 PM
I also made a tasteless allusion to the luck of the Irish, by which I only meant that L21 (very abundantly present among the male Irish) is luckier than U152 or DF27 (more abundantly present elsewhere). And for that matter, it's luckier than many other SNPs, both higher and lower on the tree. It gets calls.

Anyway, RRocca and Webb and ArmandoR1b are all among the good guys. I may occasionally argue with any of you about some detail, but I pay attention to what any of you have to say.

alejandromb92
10-20-2020, 08:05 PM
So i have the lucky irish number, cool.

One question (i know this might be not the place to do it), if i am CTS8221/Z2542-, but not tested in DF13/S521/CTS241, do that makes me already negative for DF13?

sktibo
10-23-2020, 05:32 AM
I also made a tasteless allusion to the luck of the Irish, by which I only meant that L21 (very abundantly present among the male Irish) is luckier than U152 or DF27 (more abundantly present elsewhere). And for that matter, it's luckier than many other SNPs, both higher and lower on the tree. It gets calls.

Anyway, RRocca and Webb and ArmandoR1b are all among the good guys. I may occasionally argue with any of you about some detail, but I pay attention to what any of you have to say.

I came into this hopeful I'd be L21, but I suppose DF27 is the second best option..
DF27, you're my silver medal

And a big thanks to you, Webb, Armando, and RRocca for doing all the work while I just show up make a stupid comment and head back to autosomal.

One day I'll test my Y DNA fully to be of use.. one day

alejandromb92
10-24-2020, 10:18 AM
I came into this hopeful I'd be L21, but I suppose DF27 is the second best option..
DF27, you're my silver medal

And a big thanks to you, Webb, Armando, and RRocca for doing all the work while I just show up make a stupid comment and head back to autosomal.

One day I'll test my Y DNA fully to be of use.. one day

Even the canadian primer minister is R-DF27.

sktibo
10-24-2020, 07:29 PM
Even the canadian primer minister is R-DF27.

Ahhh man, seriously...

Can I trade for U152

Webb
10-24-2020, 11:29 PM
Interestingly enough there was a study done on the Basque region and surrounding areas linking haplotypes to Roman era tribes. While we all wouldn’t be surprised by the high numbers of DF27, L21 was as high as 21% in the Basque region of Spain but quickly dropped off further west. I’ll look for the study and post a link. I found the link:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/221697667_Evidence_of_Pre-Roman_Tribal_Genetic_Structure_in_Basques_from_Uni parentally_Inherited_Markers

ArmandoR1b
10-25-2020, 04:42 AM
You seem to not understand Razyn's lamentation in post #10. While I am not in his head, I can guess as to his meaning of the post by his use of certain terms, "Because derived calls for those mutations could be false positives, caused by deamination. And if they could be, the default assumption (per their sometimes-stated criteria, a pre-existing condition) is that they are false positives. No-call is less likely to get you denied tenure than wrong-call. But this set of blinders helps to make the back story for several important haplogroups, including "brothers" DF27 and U152, a slow plot to develop. Especially in peer-reviewed academic literature, which is pretty slow at the best of times."
I bolded the parts where he is questioning the inability to make a call versus the unwillingness to make a call. He did mention no-calls there but the, rightfully made, complaint was really about some mutations that really should be taken into consideration as derived are considered false positives just because they possibly are due to deamination. He isn't really complaining that DF27 and others are getting no-calls.


In all of my posts, I was pointing out that if Z195 and Z229/Z225 are included in the 1240K scan, then if the dna is not damaged, a call should be made for these two, at least.
My point is that the DNA is damaged at the positions for Z195 and Z229/Z225 very often. That means Z195 being called is a rare occurrence. It happened way too often with the Iberian samples.


I also acknowledged that there is possibly a substantial amount of DF27 that is not Z195 and Z229/Z225 that is possibly being missed. If the dna is damaged, then it is damaged. But there are a number of samples that are left at P312* by academics, that are later called by members of this forum. Yes, but I wasn't commenting on the non-Z195 and non-Z225 misses.



On your follow up post, you have sample I3324 listed as derived for P312, however, R. Rocca called this sample as Z195, and Kolgeh called it as Z209 or P312.
Sample I3582 you have listed as derived for P312 and ancestral for Z225, however, R. Rocca called this sample as Z216 and Kolgeh called it as Z278.
There are a number of other samples listed as derived, yet R. Rocca and Kolgeh made calls for.
Yes, I3324 and I3582 are derived for P312 that is expected for any specimen that is also derived for downstream SNPs. Derived means positive. I also stated Other downstream SNPs are irrelevent for this point. The point was the frequency of the calls for P312, DF27, Z195, Z225, U152, L2, L20, and L21. R. Rocca saw a downstream derived call for both I3324 and I3582. There is no-call for Z195 for I3324. The downstream derived call is for S450 which also shows up in my analysis. But like I said it is irrelevant for the high no-call rate of Z195.


This is a quote from you, "They are both derived for DF27 which is a G>A mutation and because of that they are not considered DF27+ in the academic world". This is what Razyn is lamenting, not considered DF27 in the academic world.

That is exactly why I said Razyn was talking about authors of the academic studies throwing out C>T and G>A results a priori. Those are calls not being accepted as derived when upstream SNPs are derived and 'brother" clades are ancestral. The data shows there is a derived call but they don't want to accept it.


So again, unable to make a call and unwilling to make a call.No, it is only about unwilling to accept a call. It is not about "unable to make a call" or "unwilling to make a call". When a call is mentioned we are talking about there being data in the raw DNA. A call is not a synonym for a decision as you seem to allude to in the beginning of the post and the end of the post.

alejandromb92
10-25-2020, 09:52 AM
Interestingly enough there was a study done on the Basque region and surrounding areas linking haplotypes to Roman era tribes. While we all wouldn’t be surprised by the high numbers of DF27, L21 was as high as 21% in the Basque region of Spain but quickly dropped off further west. I’ll look for the study and post a link. I found the link:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/221697667_Evidence_of_Pre-Roman_Tribal_Genetic_Structure_in_Basques_from_Uni parentally_Inherited_Markers

By experience i think the spanish region with more frecuency of L21 is Galicia, also according this study by Joe Flood (The phylogenealogy of R-L21: four and a half millennia of expansion and redistribution)

https://i.imgur.com/g4PMLlG.png

I have saw on FB a lot of galicians and some other iberians with L21, but never a basque, there may be some with L21, but a 1/5 of them is a high % in my opinion.

ArmandoR1b
10-25-2020, 06:15 PM
By experience i think the spanish region with more frecuency of L21 is Galicia, also according this study by Joe Flood (The phylogenealogy of R-L21: four and a half millennia of expansion and redistribution)

https://i.imgur.com/g4PMLlG.png

I have saw on FB a lot of galicians and some other iberians with L21, but never a basque, there may be some with L21, but a 1/5 of them is a high % in my opinion.

Joe Flood should post the source for his data. It is important to know how the data is acquired to be able to see why there is a difference where there is a difference. If you read posts about Joe Flood by rms2 I would not take the data provided by Joe Flood at face value. Joe Flood didn't do the study himself. I would like to know where he got the numbers for L21 in Galicia since only one of the academic studies that I checked have Galicia as a region that was studied for L21 and the rate is different from what was posted by Joe Flood.

If you go through the data of Martínez-Cruz et al. 2012 (https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/29/9/2211/1077096#supplementary-data) and calculate the percentages you will have the following result




Region
Sample size
L21


Bigorre
44
6.82%


Béarn
56
14.29%


Chalosse
58
10.34%


Admix Zone
44
27.27%


Navarre Labourdin
66
13.64%


Soule
53
5.66%


Roncal
53
20.75%


Central/Western Navarre
60
15.00%


North/Western Navarre
51
9.80%


Gipuskoa
47
19.15%


South/Western Gipuskoa
57
22.81%


Araba
51
21.57%


Bizkaia
57
12.28%


Western Bizkaia
19
10.53%


Cantabria
18
0.00%


Burgos
20
0.00%


La Rioja
54
11.11%


North Aragon
27
3.70%






The Basque speaking regions are Soule, Roncal, Central/Western Navarre , North/Western Navarre, Gipuskoa, South/Western Gipuskoa, Araba, Bizkaia and they total 429 samples.

However, if you look at Valverde et al. 2015 (https://www.nature.com/articles/ejhg2015114) only 2.05% of 341 samples from the Basque Country are derived for L21. That is the study that included the rate of L21 in Galicia which it shows to be at 7.14% which is less than what shows in the graph by Joe Flood.

So now we need a much larger study of the Basque Country, Galicia, and surrounding regions to get a better idea of the rate of L21 in those regions since the two studies we have of L21 in the Basque Country contradict each other and both have hundreds of samples.

alejandromb92
10-25-2020, 07:39 PM
Joe Flood should post the source for his data. It is important to know how the data is acquired to be able to see why there is a difference where there is a difference. If you read posts about Joe Flood by rms2 I would not take the data provided by Joe Flood at face value. Joe Flood didn't do the study himself. I would like to know where he got the numbers for L21 in Galicia since only one of the academic studies that I checked have Galicia as a region that was studied for L21 and the rate is different from what was posted by Joe Flood.

If you go through the data of Martínez-Cruz et al. 2012 (https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/29/9/2211/1077096#supplementary-data) and calculate the percentages you will have the following result




Region
Sample size
L21


Bigorre
44
6.82%


Béarn
56
14.29%


Chalosse
58
10.34%


Admix Zone
44
27.27%


Navarre Labourdin
66
13.64%


Soule
53
5.66%


Roncal
53
20.75%


Central/Western Navarre
60
15.00%


North/Western Navarre
51
9.80%


Gipuskoa
47
19.15%


South/Western Gipuskoa
57
22.81%


Araba
51
21.57%


Bizkaia
57
12.28%


Western Bizkaia
19
10.53%


Cantabria
18
0.00%


Burgos
20
0.00%


La Rioja
54
11.11%


North Aragon
27
3.70%






The Basque speaking regions are Soule, Roncal, Central/Western Navarre , North/Western Navarre, Gipuskoa, South/Western Gipuskoa, Araba, Bizkaia and they total 429 samples.

However, if you look at Valverde et al. 2015 (https://www.nature.com/articles/ejhg2015114) only 2.05% of 341 samples from the Basque Country are derived for L21. That is the study that included the rate of L21 in Galicia which it shows to be at 7.14% which is less than what shows in the graph by Joe Flood.

So now we need a much larger study of the Basque Country, Galicia, and surrounding regions to get a better idea of the rate of L21 in those regions since the two studies we have of L21 in the Basque Country contradict each other and both have hundreds of samples.

Interesting study. I know this is not comparable to this kind of studies, almost all the basque males i've met, taking account the ones here in Anthrogenica, fell in R-DF27 (being most of them R-Z195, and a few R-ZZ12, like banned user GASKA). I hearded in another forum that a woman had his basque-uruguayan husband tested and got positive for L21, but this and Che Guevara are the only basque or people with basque-lineage that score L21.

This would make sense because L21, didn't arrived to Iberia b.C. almost for sure, and when it did, it was in Galicia.

cheshire
10-25-2020, 11:30 PM
Interesting study. I know this is not comparable to this kind of studies, almost all the basque males i've met, taking account the ones here in Anthrogenica, fell in R-DF27 (being most of them R-Z195, and a few R-ZZ12, like banned user GASKA). I hearded in another forum that a woman had his basque-uruguayan husband tested and got positive for L21, but this and Che Guevara are the only basque or people with basque-lineage that score L21.

This would make sense because L21, didn't arrived to Iberia b.C. almost for sure, and when it did, it was in Galicia.

I have a question, which R1b subclade celticized (i.e. brought celtic languages to) the Iberian Peninsula? I remember reading that DF27 was already there before the celtic migration, not sure if that's right.

razyn
10-25-2020, 11:57 PM
II remember reading that DF27 was already there before the celtic migration, not sure if that's right.

That might hinge on whether anything that actually happened could realistically be called a "Celtic migration." DF27 did migrate (into, not initially out of, Iberia), at least by 2500 BC. And it was probably a prevalent YDNA haplogroup in a proto-Indo-European speaking, migrant population, that wasn't along the lines of Greek, Albanian or Persian. But narrowing some of those migrants down to a (linguistically defined) Celtic subset has to have happened a good bit more recently than 2500 BC. The language family isn't as old as the original DF27 (or higher, like ZZ11, P312, or M151) migration.

After they got to western Europe, staked out their several and differentiated clan territories, and chatted with each other for a good many centuries, you could start thinking about who might reasonbly be considered "Celtic" and who mightn't.

ArmandoR1b
10-25-2020, 11:57 PM
Interesting study. I know this is not comparable to this kind of studies, almost all the basque males i've met, taking account the ones here in Anthrogenica, fell in R-DF27 (being most of them R-Z195, and a few R-ZZ12, like banned user GASKA). I hearded in another forum that a woman had his basque-uruguayan husband tested and got positive for L21, but this and Che Guevara are the only basque or people with basque-lineage that score L21.

This would make sense because L21, didn't arrived to Iberia b.C. almost for sure, and when it did, it was in Galicia.

I don't put much merit in anecdotes most of the time unless there is a large number of them and even then it depends on the situation. In this case the studies carry a ton more weight. 2% L21 in Basques and 7% in Galicia sounds more like what is what is accurate. I truly doubt that L21 didn't arrived to Iberia b.C. since France has a good amount of L21 and France borders Spain and the two haven't always been politically separate and L21 is about 4200 years old.

Webb
10-26-2020, 03:09 PM
In the study I supplied a link to is a spreadsheet in the supplementary documents showing sample sizes per region and L21 is included in the findings:

GSO, South/Western Gipuskoa: 57 samples, 13 of which were L21, this is a percentage of 22.8%. 32 were P312, 4 were M153, and 4 were SRY2627. U152, L2, and L20 had 0 each.
GUI, Gipuskoa: 47 samples, 9 of which were L21, 19.1%.
RON, Roncal: 53 samples, 11 of which were L21, 20.7%.
ALA, Araba: 51 samples, 11 of which were L21, 21.5%.

alejandromb92
10-26-2020, 04:59 PM
I don't put much merit in anecdotes most of the time unless there is a large number of them and even then it depends on the situation. In this case the studies carry a ton more weight. 2% L21 in Basques and 7% in Galicia sounds more like what is what is accurate. I truly doubt that L21 didn't arrived to Iberia b.C. since France has a good amount of L21 and France borders Spain and the two haven't always been politically separate and L21 is about 4200 years old.

Well i am not talking about a large number, but there is a lot of people from Euskadi and Navarra who shares their results on FB, also other people from different regions of Spain, also Portugal, and like i said, that ~20% of L21 in Euskadi is strange and very unlike from my point of view.

I always wondered how L21 got to Iberia, and the most shared theory online is through briton migrations to Britonia, Gallaecia. Others think that it could be visigoth (carrying clades common outside Ireland, Scotland and England), but i doubt it, or through Bell Beakers, which i doubt it too, considering that there are many Bell Beaker samples in Iberia and no L21 has yet found, only DF27 and some U152. What is your opinion on this?


I have a question, which R1b subclade celticized (i.e. brought celtic languages to) the Iberian Peninsula? I remember reading that DF27 was already there before the celtic migration, not sure if that's right.

Hi bro. It depends of what "celticized" and "celtic" means for you and others, that term is very elastic, but i get you, and it would be R-DF27, through migrations waves of Bell Beakers and Urnfield, both strangely carrying R-DF27, and some Bell Beakers were R-L2 (R-U152).

By the way, i answered your last PM, i don't really know if you received it. Best regards my friend.

cheshire
10-26-2020, 09:03 PM
That might hinge on whether anything that actually happened could realistically be called a "Celtic migration." DF27 did migrate (into, not initially out of, Iberia), at least by 2500 BC. And it was probably a prevalent YDNA haplogroup in a proto-Indo-European speaking, migrant population, that wasn't along the lines of Greek, Albanian or Persian. But narrowing some of those migrants down to a (linguistically defined) Celtic subset has to have happened a good bit more recently than 2500 BC. The language family isn't as old as the original DF27 (or higher, like ZZ11, P312, or M151) migration.

After they got to western Europe, staked out their several and differentiated clan territories, and chatted with each other for a good many centuries, you could start thinking about who might reasonbly be considered "Celtic" and who mightn't.


Well i am not talking about a large number, but there is a lot of people from Euskadi and Navarra who shares their results on FB, also other people from different regions of Spain, also Portugal, and like i said, that ~20% of L21 in Euskadi is strange and very unlike from my point of view.

I always wondered how L21 got to Iberia, and the most shared theory online is through briton migrations to Britonia, Gallaecia. Others think that it could be visigoth (carrying clades common outside Ireland, Scotland and England), but i doubt it, or through Bell Beakers, which i doubt it too, considering that there are many Bell Beaker samples in Iberia and no L21 has yet found, only DF27 and some U152. What is your opinion on this?



Hi bro. It depends of what "celticized" and "celtic" means for you and others, that term is very elastic, but i get you, and it would be R-DF27, through migrations waves of Bell Beakers and Urnfield, both strangely carrying R-DF27, and some Bell Beakers were R-L2 (R-U152).

By the way, i answered your last PM, i don't really know if you received it. Best regards my friend.

Interesting. I kinda knew Celts didn't migrate all at once, but I had the misperception that Iberia was already full of DF27 Beakers and that the Hallstatt Celtic culture had come later, through a small group that would celticize everybody else, and that they were probably L21 or a distinct subclade downstream of DF27.
I also thought that was the reason why there are a good amount of L21 spread throughout the peninsula esp. the northwestern parts.

alejandromb92
10-26-2020, 09:37 PM
Interesting. I kinda knew Celts didn't migrate all at once, but I had the misperception that Iberia was already full of DF27 Beakers and that the Hallstatt Celtic culture had come later, through a small group that would celticize everybody else, and that they were probably L21 or a distinct subclade downstream of DF27.
I also thought that was the reason why there are a good amount of L21 spread throughout the peninsula esp. the northwestern parts.

It was "full" of R-DF27 and some R-U152, but i consider Bell Beakers as a proto-celtic culture. The supose true arrival of celts to Iberia were with Urnfield, but they were the same indo-european related people as Bell Beakers. Seems to be that Urnfield in Iberia were all R-DF27 (according to samples found yet).

R-L21 in Iberia is not common, but if there is a place where you can find a decent number of them, is definitely in Galicia.

cheshire
10-26-2020, 10:25 PM
It was "full" of R-DF27 and some R-U152, but i consider Bell Beakers as a proto-celtic culture. The supose true arrival of celts to Iberia were with Urnfield, but they were the same indo-european related people as Bell Beakers. Seems to be that Urnfield in Iberia were all R-DF27 (according to samples found yet).

R-L21 in Iberia is not common, but if there is a place where you can find a decent number of them, is definitely in Galicia.

Maybe from Insular ppl who fleed the Anglo-Saxon invasion? (sorry for the dumb hypothesis lol)
But aren't some L21 subclades specific to the Iberian Peninsula to the point that these are kinda long disconnected from the Insular ones?

alejandromb92
10-27-2020, 05:17 PM
Maybe from Insular ppl who fleed the Anglo-Saxon invasion? (sorry for the dumb hypothesis lol)
But aren't some L21 subclades specific to the Iberian Peninsula to the point that these are kinda long disconnected from the Insular ones?

That's actually the most shared theory how there is the existance of R-L21 in Spain and Portugal:

https://i.imgur.com/KV8NijG.png

So it's not dumb at all. Actually, there are iberians with the so-irish R-DF49 and the so-scottish R-L1335, they are not common at all, but you can find it. I think the most common clade among iberian L21s is R-Z253, a clade that is not that common among irish and scots, and this is why some people on FB are saying that this L21 was not brought by any brittish refugee, but with germanic invasion, taking in account the high quantity of L21 found on vikings and the frecuency in Iceland and Norway. I disagree with this one.

TigerMW
11-28-2020, 02:37 PM
That's actually the most shared theory how there is the existance of R-L21 in Spain and Portugal:

https://i.imgur.com/KV8NijG.png

So it's not dumb at all. Actually, there are iberians with the so-irish R-DF49 and the so-scottish R-L1335, they are not common at all, but you can find it. I think the most common clade among iberian L21s is R-Z253, a clade that is not that common among irish and scots, and this is why some people on FB are saying that this L21 was not brought by any brittish refugee, but with germanic invasion, taking in account the high quantity of L21 found on vikings and the frecuency in Iceland and Norway. I disagree with this one.

Z253 is very common among the Irish. There are some smaller subclades among the Spanish and Portuguese that seem to be exclusive to them. That includes some smaller parts of Z253 and Z251 among others (that are large L21 subclades).

Mike

alvaroabascal
12-19-2020, 10:27 AM
My point is that the DNA is damaged at the positions for Z195 and Z229/Z225 very often. That means Z195 being called is a rare occurrence. It happened way too often with the Iberian samples.


Sorry if I ask a stupid question:
There seems to be a technical problem calling certain positions like: DF27, Z195 ...
Well, now there are a lot of known SNPs below those. I guess some of these SNPs will be easier to call, why don't they do it then? If some of these are positive, I guess you don't have to worry about DF27 anymore (well, unless these downstream SNPs didn't exist yet at the time the individual lived).
What about trying to call equivalent SNPs when they exist?

Thanks in advance.

wouterdeboeck
01-20-2021, 03:49 PM
Hi, FYI i'm R-S18894 which is sample VK329. I tested Y700. Living in Belgium.