Why is this DF13 subclade different than all other DF13 subclades?

[seferhabahir]

A recent posting (of mine and Rory) from the Yahoo R-L21 Group concerning a haplotype tree of STR marker alignments from A.K.

---In [email protected], ... wrote :

The haplotype tree didn’t come with a legend for us, so we can only [deduce] that something happened to Z251 people as they journeyed toward the British Isles. Both young and old branches end up in the Isles as tests have shown. Possibly the Z251 people journeyed to the Isles as a first wave and settled in, and then other continental Z251 later became the Celtic tribes along the Normandy coast line (from Cherbourg to Dieppe) and entered the British Isles after the Battle of Hastings, in which 20,000 people (many likely being Z251) immigrated to England and Scotland. My Rickards folk ended up in Middenhall, England during that wave. This is only speculative, and I look forward to good data that explains things better.

Z251 is an interesting group!

-----------------------------------------

"Why [would] Z251 would be so heterogeneous?”

If you take a look at the probable spread of Bell Beaker in Europe, see the map for example at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaker_culture

it looks like some of those people (no doubt including Z251) went west, north, south and became somewhat geographically isolated. Waves that went north into the Isles could be linked to some of the Z251 clusters we know have ancestors there, and waves that went south (Sicily, Sardinia) might be linked to the Z251-11EE cluster, which we know has been isolated from the rest of Z251 for several thousands of years.

What I think is interesting is that none of the other DF13 sons seem to have spawned any Eastern European (Ashkenazi) subclades, just Z251. So why is that? If Z251-11EE was a story of Roman conversions in and around the Mediterranean (historians surmise there was far-flung and heavy proselytizing at this time), I would think some other Ashkenazi clusters would have appeared under other DF13 sons besides Z251.

So another question to ask is "Why would Z251 be unique concerning Ashkenazi clusters among DF13 sons?" The gigantically large numbers of surviving DF13 descendents should have created a few other pockets of converted Jews whose descendents then managed to survive to the present day. OK, it's too early for Passover, but "Why is this DF13 subclade different than all other DF13 subclades?" Truly an interesting group.

[I will stick with my conjecture that one possibility is a slow (or fast) boat to the Middle East, a la the Sea Peoples or some trader or whatever, and a Z251 guy got off the boat in Egypt or Canaan and decided to stay awhile. Hence the genetic isolation we find in the Z251-11EE subgroup and the weirdo off-modal markers, not found anywhere else in the thousands of R-L21 haplotypes, that absolutely identify this Ashkenazi subgroup as well as, or better than, the SNPs found to date in FGC or Big Y results. So, when they finally dig up an aDNA R-Z251 in the Middle East, remember you read it here.]

[rms2]

I haven't put a lot of thought into this, but right off hand I wonder about some sort of historical connection between Z251 and the branch or branches of U152 that also appear among Ashkenazi Jews.

[seferhabahir]

I haven't put a lot of thought into this, but right off hand I wonder about some sort of historical connection between Z251 and the branch or branches of U152 that also appear among Ashkenazi Jews.

Rich, the R-U152 branch that is made up of Ashkenazi Jews is the one that is L2+ L408+ L409+ L443+ as described in the FTDNA Taunus Lineage Project run by Itzhak Epstein (who I have met a few times). I'll quote him from that project...

"Our nearest (though quite remote) R-L2 relatives are western Europeans. The R-L2 haplogroup allegedly started west of the Alps or thereabout a few thousand years ago. How, where, and when did an isolated branch of European men enter the Jewish people and become Levites? Had we emerged from Europeans in the past two millennia, there would be observable similar Y-DNA lines among them."

So, here we have a similar story to my R-L21 one (or Z251, if you prefer). A group of R-L2 Jews with very distinct off-modal markers that look to be very genetically isolated from the rest of European R-L2 and with a common paternal ancestor probably within the last thousand years in Europe, no doubt a result of the Diaspora and various bottlenecks.

I don't know if any of the people in the Taunus Project have had Big Y or FGC. But, apparently there is a sample from the Rootsy study L2* samples that is L408+ and L409+ that does not share any SNPs with any of the Full Genomes or Big-Y sample so far (similar to me, where I don't share any SNPs below S9294 with any other Full Genomes or Big Y, except of course the other two Ashkenazi Big Y testers that are A555+).

See the following thread for more

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?2319-R-U152-L408

So here we have similar stories of two Jewish subclades (one that is L21+ A555+ and one that is L2+ L408+/L409+/L443+) that both appear to have ancient origins in Western Europe due to their L21 and U152 roots, but are so genetically isolated from the rest of DF13 and L2 and so ubiquitously Jewish that it argues for a very early entrance into the Jewish gene pool, and one that may not have happened in Europe. I don't know what the historical connection is, but it could be that the two ancestors of these two groups traveled a similar path south and/or east to wind up in the same place at the same time.

[Webb]

This is pretty interesting. DF27 also has a cluster that razyn has grouped and titled Ashkenazi? They are all of Eastern European origin, and are currently DF27**. As of right now they have no known downstream snps below DF27. They also have some very off modal values. All but one have a value of 13 at DYS19, all but one have a value of 12-14 at DYS385 and 16-16 at DYS395s1. These values are off for the majority of DF27.

[razyn]

OK, it's too early for Passover, but "Why is this DF13 subclade different than all other DF13 subclades?" Truly an interesting group.
In a way, I think you are just trying to get a rise out of us. Not tonight.
This may be a bitter pill, but sometimes that's necessary.
I'll dip into the files I have on the DF27 subclade Webb has mentioned. Maybe, dip twice.
Then we can just, you know, lean back and digest this information.

Be that as it may -- the relevant DF27 Ashkenazi cluster is currently called group Aaaa, at this url:
https://www.familytreedna.com/public/R1b-DF27/default.aspx?section=ycolorized

And a healthy percentage of them have Big Y test results in hand. Seems to me, they do have a few SNPs in common, but so far those are only spotted in Big Y results, and they may not be exclusive to (hence, defining of) this cluster -- only shared by its members who have tested that way, so far. The named ones picked up in Big Y tests are Z1331, Z5997, Z6030 and Z6032. I think YBrowse associates one or more of these with some other haplogroup, or with a sample whose haplogroup wasn't identified at the time the SNP was detected. There are also about 21 more mutations they seem to share, but those have not been given SNP names yet -- unless that has happened very recently at FGC, YSEQ, YFull or BISDNA, and I haven't seen it yet. It's all a bit fuzzy in my mind (well, even more than most things); and I've been concentrating on my own subclade during the recent holiday sale, ordering stuff at FTDNA for my project members while I could get it for them wholesale. As it were.

[redeyednewt]

I haven't put a lot of thought into this, but right off hand I wonder about some sort of historical connection between Z251 and the branch or branches of U152 that also appear among Ashkenazi Jews.

You cannot equate haplogroups and subclades with an ethnicity or religion. The YDNA/MT-DNA haplogroups and subclades were around long before Judaism was created, and they will be here after Judaism is gone or no longer practised as we now know it.

[rms2]

You cannot equate haplogroups and subclades with an ethnicity or religion. The YDNA/MT-DNA haplogroups and subclades were around long before Judaism was created, and they will be here after Judaism is gone or no longer practised as we now know it.

Look, no one said anything about equating anything, and no one was talking about equating a haplogroup or subclade with a religion. Obviously Z251 occurs in quite a few men whose ancestry has nothing to do with Ashkenazi Jews. But there is a haplotype cluster or subclade of Z251 that is closely connected to Ashkenazi Jews. I know because I was one of the two people who discovered it at around the same time.

There is no reason to think that because a y-dna haplogroup or subclade is older, even considerably older, than either the inception or expansion of an ethnic group that it therefore cannot be connected to that group. All that is required is for the great bulk of that haplogroup or subclade to become members of that ethnic group early enough to spread with it so that the distribution of the haplogroup or subclade and that of the ethnic group roughly coincide.

It's also a simple matter of empirical observation that when you find a haplotype cluster or subclade and every member of it, without exception, or with only very rare exceptions, is a member of a certain ethnic group, that it has some sort of connection to males within that ethnic group.

I am left wondering why you dredged up a post of mine from 2014 to misunderstand and misinterpret.

[redeyednewt]

Look, no one said anything about equating anything, and no one was talking about equating a haplogroup or subclade with a religion. Obviously Z251 occurs in quite a few men whose ancestry has nothing to do with Ashkenazi Jews. But there is a haplotype cluster or subclade of Z251 that is closely connected to Ashkenazi Jews. I know because I was one of the two people who discovered it at around the same time.

There is no reason to think that because a y-dna haplogroup or subclade is older, even considerably older, than either the inception or expansion of an ethnic group that it therefore cannot be connected to that group. All that is required is for the great bulk of that haplogroup or subclade to become members of that ethnic group early enough to spread with it so that the distribution of the haplogroup or subclade and that of the ethnic group roughly coincide.

It's also a simple matter of empirical observation that when you find a haplotype cluster or subclade and every member of it, without exception, or with only very rare exceptions, is a member of a certain ethnic group, that it has some sort of connection to males within that ethnic group.

I am left wondering why you dredged up a post of mine from 2014 to misunderstand and misinterpret.

Why not?