PDA

View Full Version : M73 - the best proxy for what R1b was doing 8000 years ago?



alan
05-13-2013, 07:59 PM
I wonder why this clade is never talked about. M73 is after all only one of two major lines stemming from P297, the other one being the line leading to M269. Klyosov dates M73 to c. 6000BC and dates the common P297 ancestor of it and M269 at 8000BC. So, these are siblings who are FAR closer related to each other than either is with V88. So for me, understanding the ancestors of M269 during the Neolithic is probably best achieved by looking tangentially at M73. As M269 didnt arise until 2000 years later than M73 as a clade there is not really much choice but to used M73 as a proxy for all P297 between 6000 and 4000BC. There just doesnt seem to be much P297*. IN general we should really be trying to understand M73 more than V88 if we want to understand the line leading to M269. Basically consider the brother rather than the cousin.

TigerMW
05-17-2013, 04:42 PM
I wonder why this clade is never talked about. M73 is after all only one of two major lines stemming from P297, the other one being the line leading to M269. Klyosov dates M73 to c. 6000BC and dates the common P297 ancestor of it and M269 at 8000BC. So, these are siblings who are FAR closer related to each other than either is with V88. ...

Good point. M73 is an important link and truly is more of a brother to M269 than V88 by probably a couple of thousand years.

Here is the R1b-M73 project.
http://www.familytreedna.com/public/r1b1b1/default.aspx?section=yresults
Look at some of those values! 390 ranges from 19 to 26 in a group of only 35 people or so.

Of course the geographies include Central Asia and even India.
http://www.familytreedna.com/public/r1b1b1/default.aspx?section=ymap

alan
05-19-2013, 12:19 AM
Thought I would paste this in before it got lost in the early branches thread which is slowly turning into a critique on Klyosov's new paper. I dont want this point lost in that because I think its a crucial point.



M73 and M269 converge as P297* far too recently c. 8000BC according to Klyosov (early Neolithic) to have been in separate ice age refugia. They dont have separate histories prior to 8000BC. So the different distribution of M73 and M269 cannot relate to them or their ancestral lineages being is separate refugia. They were at the same spot c. 8000BC.

Its the other branch P297-negative branch (which much later led to V88) that separated off in the Upper Palaeolithic according to Klyosov c. 12500BC. Now that branch could well have been in a seperate area given the much greater depth of time and the amount of drastic climatic fluctations in the 4000 years or so after that date.

alan
05-23-2013, 03:11 PM
This excellent book on p90 or so discusses the sequence of skull types in the east end of the steppes. It sees three European types as moving into the area with Molgoloid skulls only appearing very late. It would seem almost inevitable that one of those European groups included the ancient M73 people moving east. Klyosov thought that the various M73 clusters in the eastern steppe had a very remote common ancestry back 8000 years ago. Strangely though when he suggested a homeland for M73 and indeed R1b on China's western boundaries he didnt consider the archaeological evidence that the Tarim and adjacent area was not settled at all until the Bronze Age. This makes it appear certain that M73 had a prior life of several thousand years somewhere else. After all it cannot have been on China's western borders in 6000BC if the area was not even settled by anyone until several thousand years late. So I think Anatole's suggestion of M73 or R1b homeland on China's border is badly at odds with his own dates and the archaeological evidence. M73 surely must have arrived in one of the waves of Europeans noted in the craniometry discussion in the attached book.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=5FzANyya1BEC&pg=PA95&lpg=PA95&dq=afanasievo&source=bl&ots=s17FJEAc0y&sig=-X8Py0gO051IqE5zk45hD2iOCVA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=dSGeUZiXC6Lw4QSKuoDQCA&ved=0CHYQ6AEwDA

alan
05-23-2013, 05:02 PM
As it stands there is really no case for M73 coming from SW Asia as it is lacking there. It has a presence from Ukraine through central Asia to China. So, given the lack of any evidence of European type peoples (or anyone?) in the extreme east of the steppes until Afanasievo it is logical to look to the west along the steppes to central Asia and the European steppes as the most likely source. It seems clear that only steppe type groups were equiped to make move in that zone. So, its very hard not to be tempted to see M73 as an element of Afanasievo. I am not a believer in pure mono-lineage populations. We know for example from studies of Gaelic lineages/clans that clans were rarely of a single lineage even if one was dominant. They tended to integrate other groups and clans. As I said before, M73 and M269 are thought to have had a common ancestor as recently as 8000BC according to a number of individuals calculations. So, the M73 and M269 shared a starting point in the early Neolithic somewhere.

lgmayka
05-23-2013, 07:52 PM
Here is the R1b-M73 project.
http://www.familytreedna.com/public/r1b1b1/default.aspx?section=yresults
Look at some of those values! 390 ranges from 19 to 26 in a group of only 35 people or so.
One clade of R-M73 has undergone a multistep deletion at DYS390 (http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GENEALOGY-DNA/2010-11/1290081595).

alan
05-24-2013, 01:00 AM
Interesting thread. A classic actually. Does make me wonder if I havent been naive about Anatole's observations on M73. Interesting that VV thinks that M269, V88 and M73 are all oldest in SW Asia. I had worked out for myself that the Altai or adjacent R1b M73 origin point and Anatole's date for that clade were basically incompatible and impossible given the Bronze Age date of the first Europoid (or indeed any) presence in that area. However, a younger age of c. 5000BC as per VV and a connection with Afansievo's move east towards that area from the Urals c. 3300BC would work OK.

TigerMW
05-25-2013, 04:15 AM
One clade of R-M73 has undergone a multistep deletion at DYS390 (http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GENEALOGY-DNA/2010-11/1290081595).

Thank you, Lawrence.

If, and this is a big "if", one was looking at a limited set of STRs, this multi-step deletion at 390 could misleadingly drive the age of M73 older. I haven't had time to figure it out, and Klyosov's papers tend to have the cross-referencing of some corporate contract Ts and Cs (or IRS code), but we should try to understand the details of Klyosov's aging for M73....
if we are relying on it.

alan
05-25-2013, 01:52 PM
Thank you, Lawrence.

If, and this is a big "if", one was looking at a limited set of STRs, this multi-step deletion at 390 could misleadingly drive the age of M73 older. I haven't had time to figure it out, and Klyosov's papers tend to have the cross-referencing of some corporate contract Ts and Cs (or IRS code), but we should try to understand the details of Klyosov's aging for M73....
if we are relying on it.

It did seem though that the result of the debate was only to push the age of M73 back towards 7000 years old instead of 8000 years. VV also believed that M269, M73 and V88 are all oldest in SW Asia. I find a location in the hearland of early farming hard to tally with what appears to be R1b doing very little pre-5000BC. Other than seeing R1b as peripheral to early farming or located somewhere on its margins to the east or north, the only explantation I can think of that would actually place R1b in the heart of farming yet somehow doing very little would be if it recieved a nasty bottleneck. The aridity phase that peaked around 3900BC seems to have been the most extreme of that era. Either explanation is possible. However, I do have trouble seeing R1b expanding from Uruk in southern Iraq.

alan
05-31-2013, 11:13 AM
I was thinking the new paper Dienekes just posted that argues that Maykop originated in south central Asia and the Iran plateau could in theory make it easier to understand the relationship of the two P297 subclades M73 and M269. After all M73 and L23XL51 do have a presence in central Asia. This new proposed origin point is perhaps a more comfortable central location for those two clades. Again it is important to note that these two clades are far closer related (perhaps common ancestor c. 8000BC) than either are to V88 where a common ancestor is not shared until we are back in the Palaeolithic.

Jean M
05-31-2013, 01:00 PM
but we should try to understand the details of Klyosov's aging for M73.... if we are relying on it.

I am not the only one who feels that it would be a mistake to rely on any dating by this author. Tim Janzen posted on Nov 23, 2010 in the thread lgmayka drew our attention to:

Even though Anatole's approach is different, I would like to point out that he gets very similar TMRCA estimates to those I get using the variance method.

The response by Vincent Vizachero:


Even when the final answer seems roughly correct, I don't think that puts the method above criticism. For example, in the recent Cruciani et al. paper they got a TMRCA estimate for R-V88 that is roughly correct even though their method and their sampling were BOTH terrible. It just so happened that the two errors drove the estimate in opposite directions by roughly the same amount. The errors cancelled each other out, so to speak. Scientists should get no credit for luck, in my book.

In this particular case, if you are going to use intraclade variance then you have to be extremely careful about which haplotypes you include and exclude as members of the clade. Anatole has not, in my experience, been very diligent about this in the past and this lack of diligence has led to some unsupportable claims (e.g. "ancient" presence of R1b in the Altai).

Anatole has also employed some disturbingly unreasonable assumptions about the independence of mutations in his haplotype pools, which leads to severely underestimated confidence intervals. Many readers of this list do not have the time or energy to verify these estimates personally, and my fear is that they will see these exaggerated claims of accuracy and precision and put MORE faith in them than in the more honest and circumspect claims of folks like you, Ken, Dienekes, and others.


http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GENEALOGY-DNA/2010-11/1290544885

R.Rocca
05-31-2013, 03:31 PM
I am not the only one who feels that it would be a mistake to rely on any dating by this author.

That makes two of us. I think the only thing we can say for sure is that based on variance, M73 seems to be a good deal older than M269.

Rathna
05-31-2013, 04:37 PM
That makes two of us. I think the only thing we can say for sure is that based on variance, M73 seems to be a good deal older than M269.

Many things should be taken in consideration for deciding this. Why I-M26 in Sardinia is thought so recent as to the recent paper of Boattini et al.?
It is possible that it, the most diffused haplogroup of Sardinia (isolated from at least 9000 years), has only 5153 YBP, and why cluster 1 is only 1207 years old and cluster 2 is 5695? And why Sardinian clusters are different from the Iberian ones, demonstrating a far separation?
But of course because the most part of clusters go extinct as time passes and only a few survive. After so long only one. For this we should think the other way around as to the variance: less variance could also mean more ancientness. The same happens with surnames. China has a few surname, because they use it from so long. Italy 350,000, and Italians are less than 5 percent of Chinese.
The same happened with R-M73: Asia has 2 clusters, actually 1, only because a cluster had a multistep mutation in DYS390. Western Europe has many different haplotypes, two also in Italy, and I think having demonstrated that they were born in Europe, even though the Asian R-M73 are more. But probably they were carried there by the Tocharians, IE language of the centum group, then probably of Western European origin.

Jean M
05-31-2013, 05:16 PM
That makes two of us. I think the only thing we can say for sure is that based on variance, M73 seems to be a good deal older than M269.

Could be, but if we include wide confidence margins, they overlap. At least the estimated dates I have for M269 are: 4-8000 ya (V.V.), 5-8000 ya (Arredi), 6500-8500 ya (Tim Janzen). These estimates may not be the latest from V.V. and T.J. I think I noted them down a couple of years ago.

We can see from the thread in 2010 that a date of c. 7000 y.a. was calculated for M73 by V.V. and others.

alan
05-31-2013, 10:14 PM
Could be, but if we include wide confidence margins, they overlap. At least the estimated dates I have for M269 are: 4-8000 ya (V.V.), 5-8000 ya (Arredi), 6500-8500 ya (Tim Janzen). These estimates may not be the latest from V.V. and T.J. I think I noted them down a couple of years ago.

We can see from the thread in 2010 that a date of c. 7000 y.a. was calculated for M73 by V.V. and others.

I think the specific problem with M73 was the use of multi-step mutations in an STR used for AK's calculations that may have throw his calculations out a bit. That said, I did AK not only suggest a date for M73 of 8000ya? That is a bit older but nothing huge. It was P297 overall he placed around 10000 years ago. Given all of that I am inclined now to believe the 7000ya date. The most interesting aspect of this is that all three major R1b superclades (M269, M73 and V88)appear to have come into existence/started some sort of expansion around the same sort of 4-5000BC timeframe despite their contrasting distribution. Its not that big a surprise to me that M269 and M73 expanded at broadly similar periods because they did share an ancestor c. 10000 years ago but its interesting that V88 also had a similar expansion time despite it not sharing a common ancestor with M269 and M73 since the Palaeolithic. Perhaps all three clades remained in the same zone and subject to the same conditions/pressures/opportunities until 5000BC/4000BC (ish). I find the possibility very interesting that Maykop and a whole wide horizon expanded c. 4000BC or so from the Iran Plateau and adjacent south central Asia (see my monologue thread lol) from an area where the Neolithic is only attested from the 6th millenium and which led to an advanced copper age with widespread contacts and influence. The position seems a good one to explain M73, M269 and V88 without too much geographical jumping through hoops.

Jean M
05-31-2013, 10:25 PM
I think the specific problem with M73 was the use of multi-step mutations in an STR used for AK's calculations that may have throw his calculations out a bit.

Yes lgmayka pointed that out above, and I read the thread to which he helpfully referred us. I was making a more general point. You can see from that thread, and indeed from the points made by several persons in the thread you started on A.K.'s work, that his calculations have been questioned on several occasions for a range of reasons over the last few years. This is not an isolated instance of a problem.

alan
06-01-2013, 01:51 AM
Yes lgmayka pointed that out above, and I read the thread to which he helpfully referred us. I was making a more general point. You can see from that thread, and indeed from the points made by several persons in the thread you started on A.K.'s work, that his calculations have been questioned on several occasions for a range of reasons over the last few years. This is not an isolated instance of a problem.

I think I have given up on him after his last paper. He seemed to be becoming more sensible in his interpretations as time passes but that last one was back to square one. I do like the way he looks at the cluster and subclusters within a clade and the same sort of geography and looks at the time separation between their base haplotypes. I think his technique is OK and seems to produce very similar results to the more mainstream variance crunchers except where he overlooks some factor such as with M73. Its a shame he tends to react badly to criticism instead of taking it on board. .

MJost
06-01-2013, 03:32 AM
Here are the 13 Hts from MikeW's R1b-Early.

Intraclade Founder's Modal Age
R1b -Early x-M73 N=13
Kazakhstan EE Asia Southwest
67(50)Markers Using MCM's
Gen 368.9 +-46.2
@30year per Gen 11,068.2 +-1,386.0 Ybp

67(25) Bird's q Stable STRs

Gen 380.9 +-63.4
@30year per Gen 11,428.4 +- 1,902.7 Ybp

Kazakhstan core, maybe?

MJost

England IS Eng z unk
France EW Fra z unk
Italy EE East Mediterranean
Kazakhstan EE Asia Southwest
Kazakhstan EE Asia Southwest
Kazakhstan EE Asia Southwest
Kazakhstan EE Asia Southwest
Luxembourg EW Low Countries
Spain EW Iberian Peninsula
Uzbekistan EE Asia Southwest
zzCountry zzRegion
zzCountry IS z unk
zzCountry zzRegion

alan
06-01-2013, 09:06 AM
Here are the 13 Hts from MikeW's R1b-Early.

Intraclade Founder's Modal Age
R1b -Early x-M73 N=13
Kazakhstan EE Asia Southwest
67(50)Markers Using MCM's
Gen 368.9 +-46.2
@30year per Gen 11,068.2 +-1,386.0 Ybp

67(25) Bird's q Stable STRs

Gen 380.9 +-63.4
@30year per Gen 11,428.4 +- 1,902.7 Ybp

Kazakhstan core, maybe?

MJost

England IS Eng z unk
France EW Fra z unk
Italy EE East Mediterranean
Kazakhstan EE Asia Southwest
Kazakhstan EE Asia Southwest
Kazakhstan EE Asia Southwest
Kazakhstan EE Asia Southwest
Luxembourg EW Low Countries
Spain EW Iberian Peninsula
Uzbekistan EE Asia Southwest
zzCountry zzRegion
zzCountry IS z unk
zzCountry zzRegion

I am understanding this? Is this R1b early with M73? What is R1b early in normal clade terms? That is a very early date indeed.

MJost
06-01-2013, 03:50 PM
I am understanding this? Is this R1b early with M73? What is R1b early in normal clade terms? That is a very early date indeed.

Walsh has a R1b and Subclades Gateway Project for R1b (M343+) Y DNA Haplogroup (includes M269) [explained below] found at: http://www.familytreedna.com/public/r1b/

and a Yahoo forum at: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/R1b-YDNA/

where he has a file link to his Nov 2012 spreadsheet file named:

Haplotype Data for R1b Early Branches
Haplotype Data for R1b confirmed haplotypes for subclades that are P312- U106-. P312 and U106 are the two very large European subclades of R1b so this file is all of the rest. M269*, V88, M335, M73, L23*, L51*, L584, L277 are all included. This is on the AllHts tab. The data comes from public FTDNA project pages, Ysearch, some from posters blogging the latest results. The 111 STR haplotypes are on the ExtHts tab. Informational Clades/Varieties, Rates and Locations tab/worksheets are also included. - M.W.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/17907527/R1b-Early_Haplotypes.zip

MJost

alan
06-01-2013, 04:03 PM
Walsh has a R1b and Subclades Gateway Project for R1b (M343+) Y DNA Haplogroup (includes M269) [explained below] found at: http://www.familytreedna.com/public/r1b/

and a Yahoo forum at: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/R1b-YDNA/

where he has a file link to his Nov 2012 spreadsheet file named:

Haplotype Data for R1b Early Branches
Haplotype Data for R1b confirmed haplotypes for subclades that are P312- U106-. P312 and U106 are the two very large European subclades of R1b so this file is all of the rest. M269*, V88, M335, M73, L23*, L51*, L584, L277 are all included. This is on the AllHts tab. The data comes from public FTDNA project pages, Ysearch, some from posters blogging the latest results. The 111 STR haplotypes are on the ExtHts tab. Informational Clades/Varieties, Rates and Locations tab/worksheets are also included. - M.W.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/17907527/R1b-Early_Haplotypes.zip

MJost

But if you do a calculation for a group that includes a mix of M269 and say V88 is that not always going to come out really early. Surely a grouped 'early clades' bunch like that will be greatly altered if there is a mix of M269, M73 or V88? That would lead to much older ages around the interclade of any two or three of those that happen to be in the early clades mixed bag. Similarly if the early clades all fall into one of those branches when you do a calculation this will mean it will come out much younger. I may be misreading this but it seems to me that a mixed bag of early clades wont tell us anything unless they all are by chance all the same clade in the same one of the three main R1b branches. If you have a mixture of 2 or 3 of the same branches will the result not simply come out as the interclade date between the branches?

If I am understanding correctly that your calculation was all early clades minus M73 then is your 8-10000BC date being pushed back by the presence of some V88 in your sample along with the M269 stuff? If it is then that is actually younger than I would have expected - I am pretty sure the interclade date of M269 and V88 is older than that (can anyone post an interclade?)

MJost
06-01-2013, 04:31 PM
The M73's Coalescence age is significantly younger at

Gen 266.4 +-53.0
7,992.6 +-1,591.2 ybp

Appears to have been a very slow (or bottlenecked) growth rate from the founder to the Coalescence node.

MJost

alan
06-01-2013, 04:55 PM
The M73's Coalescence age is significantly younger at

Gen 266.4 +-53.0
7,992.6 +-1,591.2 ybp

Appears to have been a very slow (or bottlenecked) growth rate from the founder to the Coalescence node.

MJost

I was more thinking about the node ages/interclades between the three main R1b branches rarther than the intraclades.

However it is interesting that again M73 intraclade also comes in the same sort of range c. 6000-4000BC that has been implied for M269 and V88. That is despite the common ancestor of M268 and M73 (P297) being estimated to around 8-10000BC and their shared ancestor with V88 coming in several thousand years older still. Its interesting that despite their shared ancestor being many millenia earlier, all three R1b clades seem to coalece in the same 4-6000BC sort of range (late Neolithic - copper Age). Again that makes me think they were subject to similar forces, limitations and opportunities which in turn COULD suggest that, despite only sharing a distant ancestor many thousands of years earlier, they may have remained in the same area until 6-4000BC when some sort of opportunity for expansion presented itself and was shared by all three branches.

MJost
06-01-2013, 05:26 PM
But if you do a calculation for a group that includes a mix of M269 and say V88 is that not always going to come out really early. Surely a grouped 'early clades' bunch like that will be greatly altered if there is a mix of M269, M73 or V88? That would lead to much older ages around the interclade of any two or three of those that happen to be in the early clades mixed bag. Similarly if the early clades all fall into one of those branches when you do a calculation this will mean it will come out much younger. I may be misreading this but it seems to me that a mixed bag of early clades wont tell us anything unless they all are by chance all the same clade in the same one of the three main R1b branches. If you have a mixture of 2 or 3 of the same branches will the result not simply come out as the interclade date between the branches?

If I am understanding correctly that your calculation was all early clades minus M73 then is your 8-10000BC date being pushed back by the presence of some V88 in your sample along with the M269 stuff? If it is then that is actually younger than I would have expected - I am pretty sure the interclade date of M269 and V88 is older than that (can anyone post an interclade?)

Clarification - MikeW stated these 13 HTs were x-M73. These are the only ones I used to calculate the x-M73 age. What were they as they were marked with an 'x-'? We need to defer to Mike if they were P297+ and M269-? But what ever they were, the result is old.

For deeper ancestry age calcuations, I am really leaning to using a sliding HG (use one ancestral SNP and one snp below only) selection for dating. So if, lets say, P297, we can combine P297 and M73 and M269 HTs, then we can should be able to get a reasonable age for the cluster. Caveat, if one subclade branch is significantly younger, then it then may also effect a younger age calculation as you mentioned, skewing affects from the large numbers of HTs that have a much lower variance in the younger subclade.

If there are enough Clade to subclade HTs, then we can calculate the Interclade TMRCA for a subclade's Top end number of generations based on standard deviations, when the older clade's HTs are contained in my CladeB worksheet.

MJost

TigerMW
06-01-2013, 07:02 PM
Clarification - MikeW stated these 13 HTs were x-M73. These are the only ones I used to calculate the x-M73 age. What were they as they were marked with an 'x-'? We need to defer to Mike if they were P297+ and M269-? But what ever they were, the result is old.
...
I just put the "x" in the variety name so they would sort out at that end in a "by variety" sort. They are M73+.

MJost
06-01-2013, 07:31 PM
Ah. Thanks for the explaination Mike.

MJost

MJost
06-01-2013, 08:03 PM
I was more thinking about the node ages/interclades between the three main R1b branches rarther than the intraclades.


I will re-run the numbers

MJost

MJost
06-01-2013, 08:25 PM
MikeW do you have any suggestions as to which exact HG's we should use to run interclades at and below P297?

MJost

alan
06-03-2013, 01:16 PM
I have to admit that if M73 really is only about the same age as M269 and V88 and Anatole was out due to the problem with the multi-step changes then the answer to the title of the thread is no. All three essentially MAY hint at the location of these then-new lineages c. 4-5000BC without giving any priority to any one of the three as the answer to the deeper time location.

Still, they may tell us something. If they did expand in the same general timeframe in different directions then the most likely location for their ancestor (more so the two M269 and M73 which share a closer common ancestor) that forms a rational centrepoint for the distribution of those clades. In this regard somewhere like the south end of the Caspian would not be a bad location as it would allow M73 to spread east into central Asia as well as west through the Caucasus and Anatolia. It also would be not a bad location to see V88 spread into the middle east.

One article notes of the later Silk Road:

The road stretched from the western gates of a city which is now called Hsian, in China's Chanxi Province, and passed through the southern part of Gobi Desert to reach western Turkistan. It then passed through Sin Kiang and Kashghar to reach Jihun (Ceyhan). After passing through such major cities of the time as Samarkand, Bukhara and Merv, the Silk Road then reached the Iranian border.

A central location such as NW Iran for P297 would make some sort of sense of M73 moving east and M269 towards the Casucasus and Anatolia and SE Europe. It also places it outside the zone where the first farmers who went to Europe came from, thus explaining the lack of R1b in the Neolithic ancient DNA remains. I have for a while thought that R1b (if the variance dating is correct) most likely was tucked away somewhere north or east of the earliest farming zone (Mesopotamia, the Zagros, Anatolia and the Levant) or it would surley have had earlier formation of strong branches than 5000BC and also ancient DNA remains in Europe in the Neolithic. That might hint (unless the arid periods c. 6200BC and 4000BC simply killed off most of the lines) that it was in an area where farming arrived late. This is the case in the Iran Plateau as defined in its narrow sense.

smal
06-08-2013, 05:53 PM
235464, Kazak >> KaraQypshaq>Karabalyk, Kazakhstan has four new SNPs (WTY) - L1432, L1433, L1434, L1435.

MJost
06-08-2013, 06:25 PM
235464, Kazak >> KaraQypshaq>Karabalyk, Kazakhstan has four new SNPs (WTY) - L1432, L1433, L1434, L1435.

So will this be a new branch under R-M73 peer to M269 since 249621 Kassaev R1b1a1 R-M73 is M269- but M73+?

MJost.

smal
06-08-2013, 06:42 PM
I don’t have full information, but I think we need more tests for L1432, L1433, L1434, L1435 to see.

alan
06-16-2013, 11:36 AM
I thought I would paste this (from the Maykop thread) in here as its relevant

this recent study of the caucasus

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/conten....full.pdf+html

included the following yDNA table 3

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/conten...ables_corr.pdf


M73 only looks significant among Kara (Dagestan) Nogays, the Balkars of the Russia (Russian-Georgian border area just NW of Osseta) and to a lesser degree Karachays (also of the Russia near the Black Sea end of the border with Georgia), all being Turkic speakers. At least there is some consistency there that it is northern and Turkic associated. However, M73 and M269 coalece around 8000BC so this must have been absorbed by the Turks in this area or (more likely IMO) picked up on the steppes and swept along by the Turks as they moved west as it does appear in a few Turkic populations.

I notice the Turkic Nogays/Nogais are odd in that the Kuban ones have lots of M269 and no M73 while the Kara ones are the reverse of that.

M73 has a patchy distribution among Turkic peoples but it does seem to me that Turkic peoples absorbed them a lot. The same is true of course for R1a. I dont know how much of this was simply local absorbtion of M73 where it is today and how much was down to absorbtion further east along the steppes and then sweeping them along with them. However M73 is known right across the length of the steppes so one way or another I think it had made it way to the east before the Turks or earlier Asiatic tribes came along. There is a really massive barrier of deserts east of the Caspian so I think wherever the shared P297 homeland c. 8000BC (according to some estimates) was (be it Iran, the north Caucasus or adjacent steppe) it is likely to have passed around the west and north side of the Caspian and followed the steppe east. I am fairly convinced this is down to the trade routes towards the Alatai as there is not much other logic in heading that way. What I would say is the distribution of M73 would appear to suggest it had moved far to the east along the steppe before the prevailing direction of steppe movements reversed.

alan
07-14-2013, 03:12 PM
I was reading recently about the khvalynian Sea - the hugely extended Caspian of c. 15000 to 9000BC. It clearly would have been a major barrier between the western steppes and central Asia and must have had a major impact on cultural, genetic and linguistic development. I was going to post on this before but I forgot. I was reminded as I am re-reading Anthony (I wanted to read as many papers by other authors before re-reading it) and he mentions it too and makes the same point. This is a recent paper on the subject

http://ubuntuone.com/p/19zG/

This is interesting given that P297 dates to around 9000BC. It sort of emphasises that R1b almost back to its origin point to the birth of P297 would have been stranded on one side of this sea. It was clearly not on the eastern side as that area essentially remained aloof hunters doing their own thing until well into the Bronze Age.

It sort of puts 9000BC as the earliest possible opportunity for a move further east and apparently this was not an opportunity that was taken judging by archaeology and also by any trace of P297 lineages older than M73 or M269 (c. 5000 and 4000BC). Any lineages that did make the move were dead ends. This is further evidence that Anatole's model of R1b originating in central Asia cannot be correct. It sort of further confirms the likely eastern boundary of possible R1b refugia. The long duration of that barrier means that all R1b clades down to P297 would have to have been west of the barrier. Not surprising but more confirmation of previous deduction of most people. It again points to a location somewhere between the western shores of the Black Sea, the Urals and the north Caucasus/north Iran area as the likely R1b refugium.

lgmayka
07-15-2013, 03:49 AM
http://ubuntuone.com/p/19zG/
The abstract:
---
Radiocarbon dates for both Lower and Upper Khavalynian transgressions fall in the timespan between 10 and 17 ka BP, with 13.6–11.8 ka BP, as the most probable age. This transgression supposedly proceeded as a rapid succession of sea-level fluctuations. The initial emergence of Mousterian industries in the Caspian basin as indicated by the Volgograd site, might be correlated with a mild interval preceding the Atelian regression, which was broadly contemporaneous with the Last Glacial maximum (25–18 ka BP). The subsequent expansion of Mousterian sites was largely coeval with the Khvalynian transgression. Supposedly, specific environments that arose in the Caspian basin favoured a prolonged conservation of the Mousterian technique, and, possibly, a survival of Neanderthal populations. A possible factor is a ‘cascade’ of Eurasian basins that included the Caspian-Black Sea ‘spillway’, which effectively isolated the Caucasian-Central-Asian area.
---

alan
07-15-2013, 12:36 PM
Obviously that is their observations on the earlier impact but they note the lack of upper Palaeolithic (modern human) sites in the central and east Caucasus and central Asia that pe-date 10000BC and suggest that the water barriers (presumably in conjuction with the mountain barriers/ice etc) made this area very hard to access for modern human groups until 10000BC, something that earlier in the transgressions actually helped late survival of the Neanderthal population. The main interest from the point of view of R1b and R1a (and other groups) is that this makes it very unlikey that either were in the Caucasus-central Asia are before 10000BC (which archeology supports) ad there was a long term east-west and north-south barrier to human movement. At the extremes of date this would have had a profound effect on R1 and very early R1a and R1b. In the more confined date option 13.6–11.8 ka BP it would allow enough time for early forms of R1a and R1b (such as P25*) to actually end up on different sides of the divide. However, that does not negate the lack of settlement by Upper Palaelithic modern humans in the central and eastern Caucasus or central Asia until as late as 10000BC which would completely rule out that zone as a potential home for R, R1, early R1a and early R1b or indeed any haplogroup of the modern human genome. When you consider the bigger picture of the whole P-Q-R sort of link, that archaeological observation is very interesting and limits the options of route and of timing of movements. It suggests to me that R1 or the early forms of R1a and R1b had to have made it to points west of this barrier before it happened and that the refugia and/or route into the steppes for such early groups could not have been through central Asia or the Caucasus according to archaeological evidence regardless of the exact date and duration of the barrier. That only really leaves a route into the western steppes from the east before the Upper Khavalynian transgressions OR a route from the west side of the Black Sea. Clearly the 'above R' phylogeny would not tend to support a western route nor would the apparent absense of the R1 groups in ancient DNA in pre-copper age Europe. Its easiest to see R1 as taking a north of Caspian route west along the steppe prior to the transgression. There was in theory apparently time for it to filter south between the Black and Capsian seas before the transgression but archaeology according to this report does not place modern human upper palaeolithic remains there until the end of the transgression. Collectively that makes it extremely likely that R1 was located on the western steppe by 12000BC and probably much earlier and that it almost certainly did not pass south by a route involving the Caucasus or Central Asia until after 10000BC. It should be noted that the Gravettian groups in that area were cold adapted and remained in that area even in suprisingly bad conditions. There main opportunity for movement (if they so wished) in the late Upper Palaeolithic would seem to be westwards to me and as far as I recall the main spread of similar epi-Gravettian hunters in that period ranged from around the bloated Caspian to the west shores of the Black Sea.

This sort of position actually does fit rather nicely into the apparent lack of R1 involvement in early farming and its late branching.

The devil is of course in the detail but it does


The abstract:
---
Radiocarbon dates for both Lower and Upper Khavalynian transgressions fall in the timespan between 10 and 17 ka BP, with 13.6–11.8 ka BP, as the most probable age. This transgression supposedly proceeded as a rapid succession of sea-level fluctuations. The initial emergence of Mousterian industries in the Caspian basin as indicated by the Volgograd site, might be correlated with a mild interval preceding the Atelian regression, which was broadly contemporaneous with the Last Glacial maximum (25–18 ka BP). The subsequent expansion of Mousterian sites was largely coeval with the Khvalynian transgression. Supposedly, specific environments that arose in the Caspian basin favoured a prolonged conservation of the Mousterian technique, and, possibly, a survival of Neanderthal populations. A possible factor is a ‘cascade’ of Eurasian basins that included the Caspian-Black Sea ‘spillway’, which effectively isolated the Caucasian-Central-Asian area.
---

alan
07-15-2013, 02:59 PM
Another observation worth making is that the ancesor of both M269 and M73, P297* (which is basically non-existant today)is dated to around the time of the end of this east-west barrier of the extended Caspian. It would appear not to have been possible for any western steppe group to have penetrated into central Asia etc (or vice versa) before this. The north-south barrier also seems to have opened up about this time. So, IF the alternative of a south to north or east to west arrival of R1b in the steppes is considered then this needs to make sense in terms of the barriers and archaeology. M73 seems to be dated by most to around 5000BC or perhaps a little earlier. It is distinctly a clade of the area north of the waterly barriers of the upper Palaeolithic. It is known both east and west of that former barrier. I think the overiding logic of all the evidence is that it or its ancetral P297* clade must originally have been west of the Caspian barrier and if so its opportunity to move east to the more eastern parts of its distribution post-dated 10000BC. As the paper notes there is a lack of evidence of modern humans settling central Asia and the central and east Caucasus before that date too in terms of archaeological remains. So, assuming this logic all represents reality, it would seem that M73 or its P297* ancestor branch line moved into its more easterly distribution post-10000BC.

Its also fair to say that a location for M73 or its immediate ancestor on the extreme west of the steppe zone seems unlikely. Today (even after likely incorporation in Turkic Medieval movements and perhaps earlier ones too) its western terminus is still basically at the Ukraine-Moldova border close to the farmer-forager boundary of the Cris-Bug Dniester period. It is pretty unthinkable given its variance age of c. 5000BC that if it was positioned at the western end of the western steppes (say west of the Dnieper) that it would not have been swept into the Balkans etc in the copper age. So, I think it must have already been position a little off the path of that great sweep in the period 5000-4000BC. It could simply have been in one of the more stay-home cultures of that area, a little to the south in the pre-Maykop sort of area or perhaps its trajectory was simply eastwards by chance. There are various positions, cultural locations and movements that could have taken a 7000 year old clade east rather than west. I am not aware of any movements of people east of the Volga-Urals from the western steppe in the period 10000BC-3500BC. Anthony makes the point that this was a very powerful cultural and probably ethnic-linguistic barrier that probably originated in the period when the Caspian had been extended and for some reason was not breached after it had retreated.

So, all in all it seems to me that M73 c. 5000BC when it came into existence probably had a position somewhere like the north Caucasus, the Ukraine steppes east of the Azov area or even further east in the south Russian steppes. I simply cannot see any evidence that would explain M73's significant presence in central Asia prior to the Afanasievo movements. Everything suggests that the move was linked to that and perhaps c. 3400BC it had a distribution that headed from the north Caucasus/eastern part of the western steppe and had reached the Urals in time to be part of the Afansievo movement east. I think its ubiquity among Turks from surprisingly far east to the Ukraine suggests that it was swept up by them when it had already gained a markedly eastern distribution but was rare in the western steppes.

This also makes sense in terms of the other P297 clade M269. A similar position for P297 arround the north Caucasus and/or the eastern half of the western steppes at its time of origin c. 9000BC and up to M269's birth around 4000BC allows for a geographically plausible bifurkation of the two clades or perhaps just that the M269 line happened to also go west as well as east from there while M73 largely went east. The timeframe for a geographical distinction between the two clades could be anywhere from 9000BC to 4000BC or later but the lack of archaeological evidence of movements east from this sort of centrepoint and the apparent lack of M73 in the westernmost parts of the steppes spilling into the Balkans suggests to me that they were in a similar location as late as 4000BC.

While there are optioms other than Maykop it is a plausible location. Everything points to an absence of M73 in the Balkans so that would seem to rule out the Skelya-Suvorovo type position in the Dnieper area c. 4500-4000BC for M73 at least.

M269 could have been encorporated into such a movement but its varience dating would only just allow this. It is not impossible though as their were contacts with pre-Maykop areas and the Skelya groups. There is the M269* group among the Kosovar/Albanians, a people whose very language (all maritime terms are borrowed, Satemisation) suggests displacement from a more easterly land locked position so I wouldnt rule out the possibility that an M269* pocket was swept into the Balkans by Suvorovo etc. L23* is of course far more common but its dating would really be pushed if it was included in those groups. Not impossible though. However, the fact that with the exception of the Albanians L23* and M269* rarely peak together does suggest a couple of waves were involved.

If however L23 and M73 were very much a Maykop thing then that suggests more that their encorporation into other areas of the steppes was more in the 3500BC or later bracket as that is the period when its influence extended across the southern steppes - Konstantanovka, Azov, Crimea etc and the extension of their metallurgical and mining knowledge seen at Kargaly on the Urals. That is OK from the point of view of the eastward movement as the dates fit rather well with the influence in the direction of the Urals and inclusion in Afansievo. However, a Maykop origin would mean that, although arriving just before or at the time of PIE formation, in terms of westward movement they would not have been involved in Suvorovo type early steppe movements (which Anthony links to Anatolian) into the Balkans c. 4200BC onwards and would more likely have moved west with later groups from 3500BC onwards. On balance a Maykop-linked scenario fits the archaeological and clade dating evidence better than an earlier encorporation into steppe groups although its not decisive given all the confidence intervals etc.

alan
07-16-2013, 08:54 PM
I am seeing a stat of Uyghars of Xinjaing provence in NW China of 20% M73 and 30% R1b as well as an overall estimate of about 30% European autosomal. I think the sample was Urumqi, a town close to the Tarim basin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tarimrivermap.png

I see that 20% stat often on the web but I cannot work out the original source. Seems to correspond with the pie chart map.

DMXX
07-16-2013, 09:00 PM
The Uyghurs are more "European" (West Eurasian?) than that; one study that came out a couple years ago found them to be 60% "European" (pretty sure this was a proxy term for West Eurasian in that study) and 40% East Eurasian. Would you be kind enough to share the source showing 30% R1b total? Data on the Uyghur is pretty scant and a lot of it's at a low resolution (we're talking M343-M17 here).

alan
07-16-2013, 09:41 PM
I wish I could but its quoted over the web including Eupedia. I do think there is a genuine source because I have some hazy memory of some report that implied this sort of count for Uyghurs in Xinjaing but I just cannot find it or recall it. Its one of the things that made me think of Afansievo because its just east of the Tarim basin. I cant find the source but the 20% also looks very like the R1b count on the pie chart I posted. I dont know its source either. I would like to know myself.



The Uyghurs are more "European" (West Eurasian?) than that; one study that came out a couple years ago found them to be 60% "European" (pretty sure this was a proxy term for West Eurasian in that study) and 40% East Eurasian. Would you be kind enough to share the source showing 30% R1b total? Data on the Uyghur is pretty scant and a lot of it's at a low resolution (we're talking M343-M17 here).

alan
07-16-2013, 10:19 PM
This report http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3276666/ notes:

a large proportion of Kumandin Y chromosomes belonged to R-M73. This haplogroup is largely restricted to Central Asia101 but has also been found in Altaian Kazakhs and other southern Siberians.64,102 In fact, Myres et al.101 noted two distinct clusters of R-M73 STR haplotypes, with one of them containing Y chromosomes bearing a 19 repeat allele for DYS390, which appears to be unique to R-M73. Interestingly, the majority of Kumandin R-M73 haplotypes fell into this category, although haplotypes from both clusters are found in southern Siberia.102

Judging by the table they were 35% M73.

They are a Turkic northern Altai group.

The report notes

The northern Altai languages also showed greater influences from Samoyedic, Yeniseian, and Ugric languages, possibly reflecting their origin among the ancestors of these present-day peoples. By contrast, southern Altaian languages belong to the Kipchak branch of Turkic language family and have been greatly influenced by Mongolian, especially after the expansion of the Mongol Empire.16,20 These linguistic differences are further mirrored by differences in anthropometric traits, traditional subsistence strategies, religious traditions, and clan names for northern and southern Altaians.18,19,21

The Kumandins were one of the highest Altians for European mtDNA (about 25%). Interestingly their name means the pale men.

alan
07-17-2013, 12:38 AM
I dont know the ultimate source of this pie chart map but it appears to be the 20% R1b in Xingjaing Uyghurs I have read about.

http://www.scs.illinois.edu/~mcdonald/WorldHaplogroupsMaps.pdf

I suspect that the likely R1b count origininally came from this

http://www.genetics.org/content/172/4/2431.full.pdf+html

and that someone looked at the likely R1b haplotypes and worked out they were mainly M73. Just guessing though.

Anyway, if there really is 20% M73 in NW China and 35% among a north Altai tribe who have a substantial European component then it would prove the point that there is a spread (patchy though it is) of M73 all the way to NW China and Altai. It looks like a substrate in the Turkic and Uralic groups because it is patchy. Nevertheless there does seem to be a pattern of it scattered along the steppes from the Urals to NW China (it is also present at modest numbers in the western steppe) and it is associated with groups with strong European aspects to their genetics where the Turkic peoples in particular seem to have patchily absorbed M73. This absorbtion into Turkic groups seems to be a feature of the entire steppe zone indicating M73 had spread as far as China before the Turkic expansion. I still think everything points to M73 being traces of European steppe groups who had pushed very far east.

Palisto
07-17-2013, 09:09 AM
I dont know the ultimate source of this pie chart map but it appears to be the 20% R1b in Xingjaing Uyghurs I have read about.

http://www.scs.illinois.edu/~mcdonald/WorldHaplogroupsMaps.pdf

I suspect that the likely R1b count origininally came from this

http://www.genetics.org/content/172/4/2431.full.pdf+html

and that someone looked at the likely R1b haplotypes and worked out they were mainly M73. Just guessing though.

Anyway, if there really is 20% M73 in NW China and 35% among a north Altai tribe who have a substantial European component then it would prove the point that there is a spread (patchy though it is) of M73 all the way to NW China and Altai. It looks like a substrate in the Turkic and Uralic groups because it is patchy. Nevertheless there does seem to be a pattern of it scattered along the steppes from the Urals to NW China (it is also present at modest numbers in the western steppe) and it is associated with groups with strong European aspects to their genetics where the Turkic peoples in particular seem to have patchily absorbed M73. This absorbtion into Turkic groups seems to be a feature of the entire steppe zone indicating M73 had spread as far as China before the Turkic expansion. I still think everything points to M73 being traces of European steppe groups who had pushed very far east.

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/05/on-tocharian-origins.html

Rathna
07-17-2013, 10:09 AM
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/05/on-tocharian-origins.html

Very interesting post that of Dienekes, and the link of Tocharians with Gutians has been underlined also recently. I too have written that they reached Central Asia probably passing Southward Caucasus and not Northward.
Anyway it seems that Indo-Europeans like Hittite, Indo-Iranians (and Gutians etc.) are intrusive in Middle East. Another question like that of R1b1, mtDNA H etc.
About R1b1 I hope to solve the question with the Raza's test on P25 and a few others I need.

alan
07-17-2013, 11:23 AM
Dienkes post is interesting but he makes several leaps of faith and choses his interpretation to suit his big model of IE. I dont really see any need to chose that model. The history of that area is just incredibly complex. Also there is nowhere near enough testing from different cemeteries of the correct period to say who was and wasnt present. A small sample can show presence but it takes a lot of ancient DNA from separate sites of an early enough period to imply absense.

How many separate cemeteries have been yDNA tested? I ask that because cemeteries could essentially relate to a single clan or lineage so the number of cemeteries that show a particular ylineage is far more revealing that the number of individuals from a single cemetery. We have seen the dominance of a single male lineage in a single cemetery before in ancient DNA.

Palisto
07-19-2013, 09:12 AM
Very interesting post that of Dienekes, and the link of Tocharians with Gutians has been underlined also recently. I too have written that they reached Central Asia probably passing Southward Caucasus and not Northward.
Anyway it seems that Indo-Europeans like Hittite, Indo-Iranians (and Gutians etc.) are intrusive in Middle East. Another question like that of R1b1, mtDNA H etc.
About R1b1 I hope to solve the question with the Raza's test on P25 and a few others I need.

How do explain that Siberians populations have very specific Mideast mtDNA haplogroups?
Example: J1b1b1 (10410A 16222!) is present in Armenians, Kurds, Persians and in Altaian-Kizhi, Buryat, Telenghit.

DMXX
07-19-2013, 09:34 AM
How do explain that Siberians populations have very specific Mideast mtDNA haplogroups?
Example: J1b1b1 (10410A 16222!) is present in Armenians, Kurds, Persians and in Altaian-Kizhi, Buryat, Telenghit.

Interesting; do you know much about the depth of the J1b1b1 among the East-Central Asians? Do they share common HVR values or is there some form of diversity there?

Rathna
07-19-2013, 10:16 AM
How do explain that Siberians populations have very specific Mideast mtDNA haplogroups?
Example: J1b1b1 (10410A 16222!) is present in Armenians, Kurds, Persians and in Altaian-Kizhi, Buryat, Telenghit.

I studied this hapogroup because was that of an Italian American who thought to be by his maternal line of Jewish origin, and, as his haplotype matched a Buryat one, I hypothesized that he was actually of Jewish origin, but that his maternal line came from a Khazar converted to Judaism. But lately a match with HVRI has been found also in the Alpine Region.
I think it would be useful to collect all the samples and to exam them deeply.

newtoboard
07-19-2013, 03:53 PM
How do explain that Siberians populations have very specific Mideast mtDNA haplogroups?
Example: J1b1b1 (10410A 16222!) is present in Armenians, Kurds, Persians and in Altaian-Kizhi, Buryat, Telenghit.

That doesn't make any sense because the existence of Tocharians near the Altai is dependent on the assumption that they migrated from Europe to the Minusinsk Basin and then to the Tarim. And there is no reason why these couldln't have been picked up by people in the Altai from Central Asia rather than the Tarim Basin Tocharians. Even if they are from the Tarim it could still be explained via Central Asia (Silk Road, Kushans, spread of Buddhism and Nestorian Christianity).

Palisto
07-19-2013, 04:49 PM
Interesting; do you know much about the depth of the J1b1b1 among the East-Central Asians? Do they share common HVR values or is there some form of diversity there?

Example:
J1b1b1 T10410A, C16069T, T16126C, G16145A, C16261T, C16290T, A73G, A263G, C271T, C295T, 309.1C, 315.1C could be found in one Iranian Kurd (1/25) and in 2 Telenghits (2/71).
1xT1a1'3 T16126C, A16163G, C16186T, T16189C, C16294T, A73G, T152C, T195C, A263G, 315.1C could be found in one Persian (1/82) and also in 1 Chukchi (1/15).

I also looked deeper into fully sequenced people:
EF397558(Buryat) Derenko J1b1b1 A73G A263G C271T C295T 315.1C C462T T489C C522- A523- A750G A1438G A2706G G3010A T4216C A4769G G5460A C7028T T7270C G8269A A8860G T10245C A10398G T10410A A11251G G11719A A12612G G13708A T13879C C14766T A15326G C15452A C16069T T16126C G16145A C16261T T16311C T16519C
EF397562(Altaian-Kizhi) Derenko J1b1b1 A73G A263G C271T C295T 309.1C 315.1C C462T T489C C522- A523- A750G A1438G A2706G A2707C G3010A T4216C A4769G G5460A A5592G C7028T G8269A A8860G A10398G T10410A A11251G G11719A A11893G A12612G G13708A T13879C C14766T A15326G C15452A C16069T T16126C G16145A C16261T C16290T T16519C
EF556155 Behar2008 J1b1b1 A73G C150T A263G C271T C295T 309.1C 315.1C C462T T489C C522- A523- A750G A1438G A2706G A2707C G3010A T4216C T4561C A4769G G5460A C7028T G8269A A8860G A10398G T10410A A10682G A11251G G11719A A12612G G13708A T13879C C14766T A15326G C15452A C16069T G16145A C16261T C16290T T16519C
FJ624455 FTDNA J1b1b1 9 A73G A263G C271T C295T 315.1C C462T T489C C522- A523- A750G A1438G A2706G G3010A T4216C A4769G G5460A C7028T T7270C G8269A A8860G T10245C A10398G T10410A A11251G G11719A A12612G G13708A T13879C C14766T A15326G C15452A C16069T T16126C G16145A C16261T T16311C T16519C
JF929909(Armenian) FTDNA J1b1b1 A73G T146C A263G C271T C295T 309.1C 315.1C C462T T489C C522- A523- A547G A750G A1438G A2706G G3010A T4216C A4769G G5460A C7028T G8269A A8860G G9055A A10398G T10410A A11251G G11719A A12612G G13708A T13879C C14766T A15326G C15452A C16069T T16126C G16145A C16261T T16519C
JF939049(Armenian) FTDNA J1b1b1 A73G A263G C295T 309.1C 315.1C C462T T489C C522- A523- A750G A1438G A2706G G3010A T4216C A4769G G5460A A5582G C7028T G8269A A8860G T9530C A10398G T10410A A11251G G11719A C12389T A12612G G13708A T13879C C14766T A15326G C15452A C16069T T16126C G16145A C16261T T16519C

EF397558(Buryat) Derenko is identical to FJ624455 FTDNA. FJ624455 is FTDNA 65964 Merante. This individual is in the Sephardic Heritage DNA Project, so my new guess is that these Mideast signals in Siberia are actually Jewish, and Jews are from the Middle East as well.


That doesn't make any sense because the existence of Tocharians near the Altai is dependent on the assumption that they migrated from Europe to the Minusinsk Basin and then to the Tarim. And there is no reason why these couldln't have been picked up by people in the Altai from Central Asia rather than the Tarim Basin Tocharians. Even if they are from the Tarim it could still be explained via Central Asia (Silk Road, Kushans, spread of Buddhism and Nestorian Christianity).
The signal in Siberia is probably Jewish.

newtoboard
07-19-2013, 04:57 PM
This probably has something to do with it. Could possibly explain some of the M269 in Siberia as well imo.

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

Silesian
07-19-2013, 05:26 PM
This probably has something to do with it. Could possibly explain some of the M269 in Siberia as well imo.

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

Just a gentle reminder the subheading of this thread is Thread:" M73 - the best proxy for what R1b was doing 8000 years ago?"

[[[Mikewww/Moderator on 07/13/2013: agreed again. Let's directly relate to M73 or take elsewhere ]]]

saltranger
01-15-2016, 04:47 PM
I am the Mirza fellow in B2 list.We are called Barlas,the tribe of Tamerlane and Mughals of India. Alan need your comments please.

paulgill
01-15-2016, 04:56 PM
I wonder why this clade is never talked about. M73 is after all only one of two major lines stemming from P297, the other one being the line leading to M269. Klyosov dates M73 to c. 6000BC and dates the common P297 ancestor of it and M269 at 8000BC. So, these are siblings who are FAR closer related to each other than either is with V88. So for me, understanding the ancestors of M269 during the Neolithic is probably best achieved by looking tangentially at M73. As M269 didnt arise until 2000 years later than M73 as a clade there is not really much choice but to used M73 as a proxy for all P297 between 6000 and 4000BC. There just doesnt seem to be much P297*. IN general we should really be trying to understand M73 more than V88 if we want to understand the line leading to M269. Basically consider the brother rather than the cousin.

Hunting and Gethering.

saltranger
01-15-2016, 04:57 PM
I am the Mirza fellow in B2 list.We are called Barlas,the tribe of Tamerlane and Mughals of India. Alan need your comments please.

lgmayka
01-15-2016, 08:45 PM
As usual, we need more Big Y tests from R-M73 (perhaps better called the R-M478 clade (http://yfull.com/tree/R-M478/)). For example, kit 186122 of Lithuania (perhaps of Lipka Tatar (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipka_Tatars) ancestry) has a Big Y test "reserved" for $425. But as usual, no one can afford it.

smal
01-15-2016, 09:14 PM
R-M73 (perhaps better called the R-M478 clade (http://yfull.com/tree/R-M478/))

I think R-M478 is a subclade of R-M73.
For example, look at the 180669 (M73+ M478-) sample.
In addition, aDNA sample, I0124, is M73+ Y13872+ M478-.

lgmayka
01-15-2016, 09:53 PM
For example, look at the 180669 (M73+ M478-) sample.
Then we really need a Big Y test for someone who is M73+ M478- .

smal
01-15-2016, 10:10 PM
Then we really need a Big Y test for someone who is M73+ M478- .

It'll be better to test European M73 samples. They look more diverse.

Tomenable
04-08-2016, 07:13 PM
Hunting and Gethering.

They needed many skills:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b56eAUCTLok

saltranger
05-18-2016, 11:10 AM
Interesting..being a M73 myself.

Joe B
05-18-2016, 05:49 PM
Interesting..being a M73 myself.

Welcome to Anthrogenica. There is a lot to learn about R1b-M73 haplogroup. This is especially true when it come to developing the phylogenetic haplotree. If you have not already, please join the R1b Basal Subclades - R1b-M343 (xP312 xU106) Project. https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/r-1b-basal-subclades/about/background

parasar
05-18-2016, 06:18 PM
Interesting..being a M73 myself.

Welcome!

I see you are of Turki origin.
Until now I have come across M73 in South Asia only among confirmed Turko/Mongol descendants - among the Hazara and the Baralas.

If I may ask - what is your tribe/clan?
Thanks.

saltranger
05-26-2016, 01:58 PM
I am of Barlas tribe. Could you tell who other Barlas have you come across? Thanks

parasar
05-26-2016, 02:31 PM
I am of Barlas tribe. Could you tell who other Barlas have you come across? Thanks

The one I was referring to is QXFR6 on ysearch.
QXFR6 Faisal M Jhelum, Pakistan 13 19 14 10 13 13 12 12 14 14 13 30 17 9 11 11 23 15 19 32 12 12 12 12 15 16 10 10 19 25 15 12 10 11 13 13


Maybe it is you?

saltranger
11-17-2016, 02:46 PM
Yes thats me.

Ebizur
10-01-2018, 01:35 PM
There is a basal R-M73(xM478) branch found in Western Europe (probably at least Alsace and Devon judging from the R1b Basal Subclades Project at FTDNA) whose MRCA with the main R-M478 clade dates back to some time between 13,300 ybp and 7,300 ybp (or between 14,900 ybp and 6,100 ybp if one takes YFull's 95% confidence intervals into account). The terminus post quem, 13,300 [95% 11,800 <-> 14,900] ybp, is the MRCA of R-M478 and R-M269, who belonged to R-P297.

The main R1b-M478 clade may be divided into two subclades, R-L1432 and R-Y20750. The MRCA of these two subclades dates back to 7,300 [95% CI 6,100 <-> 8,500] ybp according to YFull, which means that their MRCA probably lived in roughly the same era as (or in a slightly earlier era than) the MRCA of R-M269.

R-L1432 appears to contain very little extant diversity, with the members currently tabulated by YFull having an estimated TMRCA of 1,500 [95% CI 1,150 <-> 1,900] ybp, i.e. most likely descending from a common ancestor who lived some time in the first millennium CE. These members include at least two Russians, a Ukrainian, an individual from Shandong, China, and DA93, which is the remains of a medieval nomad¹ (radiocarbon 14C date: 1203 +- 50 BP uncal) buried on the right bank of the middle reach of the Irtysh River in what is now the village of Karaoba (Spartak), Aktogay District, Pavlodar Region in northeastern Kazakhstan. Most (perhaps all) extant members of R-L1432 share the distinctive Y-STR value DYS390=19. DYS385 tends to be 13-13, but one of 94 Uzbeks from Jawzjan, Afghanistan (sample ID: UZ8_94) in the data set of Di Cristofaro et al. (2013) has DYS385=12-13 instead. DYS389 tends to be 14-16 (or 14-30 depending on the reporting standard), but the major Kumandin lineage has DYS389=13-16 according to Dulik et al. (2012); DYS389=13-16 also has been observed in a Kyrgyz from southwestern Kyrgyzstan and in an individual from Gilan, Iran according to Di Cristofaro et al. (2013). Malyarchuk et al. (2011) reported a haplotype of an Altaian R-M73 individual with DYS389=14-15. All five R-M478 Mongols (2/18 central Mongolia, 1/23 southeastern Mongolia, and 2/97 northwestern Mongolia) from the data set of Di Cristofaro et al. (2013) have the modal values DYS390=19, DYS385=13-13, DYS389=14-16, as do the R-M73 Kalmyks (2/60) and Tuvinians (2/108) from the data set of Malyarchuk et al. (2011). Judging from entries in the R1b Basal Subclades Project at FTDNA, the R-BY17659 branch of R-L1432 is found among the Qypshaq tribe of the Kazakhs (or at least their Qara-Qypshaq subgroup), and the R-BY17657 or R-BY42301 branch of R-L1432 is found among the Karakalpak people of western Uzbekistan. Ashirbekov et al. (2017) have found R-M478 in 41.4% (12/29) of a sample of Qypshaq Kazakhs.

R-Y20750 has an estimated TMRCA of 5,300 [95% CI 4,200 <-> 6,500] ybp. However, this clade owes its relatively ancient TMRCA estimate to an R-Y20750(xY20748) lineage represented by an individual from Kabardino-Balkaria in the North Caucasus. Many members of R-Y20750, including a Teleut from southern Siberia, a Bashkir, and a Tatar, belong to a subclade, R-Y20748, whose TMRCA is estimated to be only 1,750 [95% CI 1,150 <-> 2,400] ybp, comparable to the estimated TMRCA of R-L1432. The Bashkir and the Tatar share an even more recent common ancestor in R-Y22195 (TMRCA 800 [95% CI 425 <-> 1,450] ybp). Although this Bashkir individual belongs to the R-Y20750 clade, it should be noted that many of the R-M478 Bashkirs of Myres et al. (2011) have DYS390=19 and DYS389=14-16, and therefore probably belong to the R-L1432 clade instead. On the other hand, the modal R-M478 haplotype among the Balkars of Myres et al. (2011) has DYS390=22 and DYS389=14-19, a combination which is also found in a "kipshak, kumi noghay" individual in the R1b Basal Subclades Project at FTDNA. The HGDP Pakistani Hazara have their own peculiar cluster of R-M478 haplotypes (DYS390=23, DYS389=13-18 or 13-17, DYS385=13-16) that probably belongs to R-Y20750. 13.2% (5/38) of Shors, 11.4% (5/44) of Teleuts, and 3.1% (2/64) of Khakassians from the data set of Malyarchuk et al. (2011) probably belong to R-Y20750.

¹ cf. supplementary information for Peter de Barros Damgaard, Nina Marchi, Simon Rasmussen, et al. (2018), "137 ancient human genomes from across the Eurasian steppes":
Ruined burials from the village of Karaoba (Spartak)

(Spartak, kurgan 1, burial 4 (DA93), Early Medieval, Unknown, 2 teeth, adult Pavlodar; Spartak, kurgan 1, burial 5 (DA94), Early Medieval, Unknown, 1 tooth, Pavlodar)

As a result of activities being carried out in the village of Karaoba (Spartak) in Aktogay District at the beginning of the 1990s, an earth kurgan was destroyed, under which several mediaeval burials were found. Bones belonging to adults and adolescents were recovered. How the bones and associated inventory (a single bronze buckle) had originally been positioned is uncertain. The burial ritual, which involved interring several individuals under one kurgan mound, is characteristic of the Early Bronze Age population in the Irtysh area. Thus, the remains appear to be related to this period. Radiocarbon dating from bones of these individual revealed the burial to have taken place between 685 and 963 CE (cal. 2 Sigma). The largest value on the radiocarbon dating calibration curve coincides with the middle of the 8th and the beginning of the 9th century CE, linking the burial to the Turkic period.

alchemist223
06-28-2020, 09:08 PM
delete

alchemist223
06-28-2020, 09:09 PM
Then we really need a Big Y test for someone who is M73+ M478- .

One of these was finally posted to YFull (a Latvian sample), entirely redefining this clade. The branch is now split into R-Y13200 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Y13200/) (with M73 as an equivalent SNP), with M478 as a subclade. This new branch's TMRCA is 8,400 ybp.